In defense of the Constitution.

June 10, 2022

          I have begun writing on Thursday afternoon before the January 6th Committee made its presentation. Major media commentators are already declaring the hearing a failure because it will not change the views of voters in the midterms. That is a goal that exists largely in the minds of political commentators in major media outlets. No member of the January 6th Committee has said, “These hearings are about the midterms,” but the commentator class cannot be dissuaded: “Everything is about the midterms,” they tell us, “Because that is how we earn a living. We write about partisan politics. We’ll leave history to the historians.”

          On January 6th, 2021, a violent mob assaulted the Constitution. Yes, the physical object of their violence was a building, but their real goal was to subvert the charter of a great nation. They struck at the heart of the charter, a provision that ensures the continued existence of the nation: the peaceful transfer of power. The attack nearly succeeded because the insurrectionists were aided by traitors who had taken an oath to defend the Constitution, but who abandoned it in during an hour of peril. The Constitution prevailed only because enough of its servants kept their vow to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

          The question that lingers after January 6th is simple: Who will speak for the Constitution? Who will tell the story of how faithless servants nearly succeeded in rending a document that has endured for more than two centuries? Who will defend the Constitution the next time it is challenged?

          The answer depends, in part, on whether we faithfully record what happened on January 6th. If we allow traitors and cowards to weave a false narrative that denies the truth of January 6th, it will be more difficult to defend the Constitution the next time it is challenged. And the next time is coming: On the eve of the hearings, Donald Trump said the events of January 6th were ‘not simply a protest’ but ‘the greatest movement” in US history.

          The goal of the January 6th Committee is simple: to speak the truth, and thereby defend the Constitution against future threats. If it does that, it will have succeeded—without regard to the outcome of the midterms.

The hearing.

          After listening to the January 6th hearing, it is clear that the Committee seeks to defend the Constitution. It is also clear that the Committee intends to prove that Trump committed multiple felonies, including seditious conspiracy and attempting to overturn the election in Georgia. There were several significant revelations, but perhaps none more significant than the fact that the DOJ is working with “cooperating witnesses” in an investigation of the January 6th insurrection. That is welcome news, indeed.

       The exposition of the evidence suggests that the Committee—and the DOJ—may have evidence of direct communications between White House officials—or Trump attorneys—and the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers regarding plans to disrupt the count of electoral ballots. Such devastating evidence would put Trump at the center of the seditious conspiracy that serves as the basis of indictments against the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.

          Chairman Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney pulled no punches. They asserted that Trump “attempted a coup” with the assistance of John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, and the false electors. Cheney said that Trump intended to remain president of the United States in violation of his constitutional obligation to relinquish power—the basis of the seditious conspiracy charge.

          In general, the presentation was effective and to the point. The Committee quickly established that Trump knew that he lost but continued to spread the Big Lie. The Committee effectively used the testimony of Bill Barr, Ivanka Trump, and key members of the White House inner circle to demonstrate that Trump was repeatedly told that he lost the election. That knowledge is key to establishing Trump’s criminal intent in attempting to remain in office unlawfully.

          In a brilliant move, the first video clip played by Chairman Thompson was testimony from former Attorney General Bill Barr describing how he told Trump that the claims of election fraud were “bullshit.” Another video clip showed that Ivanka Trump “accepted” Bill Barr’s conclusions about the absence of fraud because she “respected Bill Barr.”

          In one of the most chilling disclosures, Trump said that the protestors chanting “Hang Mike Pence” might “have it right” and that “Pence deserves it.” Let’s pause here for a moment of reflection. A sitting president of the United States expressed sympathy for the desire of insurrectionists to hang the sitting vice president. After that revelation, how can any person of conscience or goodwill continue to support Donald Trump? Trump’s statement is grotesque, reprehensible, and cowardly.

          Liz Cheney was particularly effective. She outlined Trump’s scheme to appoint an environmental lawyer—Jeffrey Clark—as acting attorney general for the express purpose of spreading lies and confusion about the DOJ’s views of the election. Clark was ready to send a letter to Georgia saying—falsely—that the DOJ believed there were grave concerns about the fairness of the election. Clark was stopped by the threatened mass resignations of every senior DOJ official. Cheney noted that Clark has invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Based on these facts, Clark appears to have criminal exposure.

          So, too with Trump’s attorney John Eastman, who knowingly promoted frivolous legal theories to justify sending the selection of electors back to the states. According to Cheney, Eastman’s emails prove that he believed his legal theory was wrong. That theory was the linchpin of Trump’s effort to pressure Mike Pence to refuse to certify the votes cast by the electors.

          One episode stood out in Cheney’s summary. She prefaced these facts by saying that the DOJ is working with cooperating witnesses and has disclosed only some of the information it has from encrypted communications. She then recounted an “off the books” meeting in the Oval Office between Trump, Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, and Rudy Giuliani. During that meeting, they allegedly discussed seizing voting machines and “re-running” the presidential election in states where Trump lost. Shortly after that meeting, Trump sent his infamous tweet inviting his followers to come to Washington, D.C. on January 6th, promising, “Be there, will be wild.”

          My inference is that the Committee (or DOJ) has evidence of the content of the private meeting in the Oval Office (hence the reference to undisclosed “encrypted communications” in the possession of the DOJ). It is possible—and this is speculation—that the private meeting in the White House discussed coordination with the Proud Boys to use force to interrupt the count of electoral ballots on January 6th. If the DOJ has that evidence, the people at that private meeting will be going to jail—Trump, Flynn, Powell, and Giuliani.

          Cheney also said that the White House was receiving “specific reports” that “elements in the crowd” were preparing for violence on January 6th. She then noted that Steve Bannon said on his podcast on January 5th, “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.” Again, the implication is that the White House encouraged or directed the violence to stop the count of the electoral ballots.

Concluding Thoughts.

          There is more, but that is my recap on Thursday evening. The Committee is clearly intent on proving the ultimate fact—that Trump directed an attempted coup that culminated on January 6th. In speaking that truth, the Committee is rising to the defense of the Constitution.

          No summary of the hearing is complete unless it includes praise for the courage and integrity of Liz Cheney. As other politicians weigh every move by its effect on their re-election prospects, Liz Cheney is concerned only with the truth. That is a rarity during these cynical times, and we must recognize that Liz Cheney has risen to the defense of the Constitution as few others have in our nation’s history. During her closing remarks, Cheney spoke to her Republican colleagues, saying, “There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.” And when that day comes, Liz Cheney will continue to live in honor for her steadfast defense of the Constitution.

          Talk to you over the weekend!