The Final Report: “The central cause of Jan 6. was one man.”

December 23, 2022

          Late Thursday evening, the House Select Committee released its Final Report on its investigation of Trump’s attempted coup and insurrection. The Final Report is here: Final Report: Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. It would be impossible to summarize the 845-page Report in today’s newsletter. But the table of contents provides a roadmap to the Committee’s findings. Below are the major headings in the Report:

1.                The Big Lie.

2.                “I just want to find 11,780 votes.”

3.                Fake Electors and the “President of the Senate” Strategy.

4.                “Just call it corrupt and leave the rest to me.”

5.                “A coup in search of a legal theory.”

6.                “Be there. Will be wild!”

7.                187 minutes of dereliction.

8.                Analysis of the attack.

          The Report sets out its thesis in the Executive Summary (page 8): “The central cause of Jan. 6 was one man, former President Donald Trump.”

          Among the remedial actions recommended by the Committee, one stands above all others: To create a formal mechanism for Congress to consider whether Trump should be barred from holding state or federal office under the provisions of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

          The table of contents suggests that the Report is drafted in a literary style grounded in the evidence. It will stand as the judgment of history on Trump’s effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. It is a prodigious effort that will serve as a resource for prosecutors and historians alike. There will be much more to discuss in the coming weeks.

          Before the Committee released its Final Report, it released the interviews of Cassidy Hutchinson. The transcript is here: Cassidy J. Hutchinson (Redacted) . Her testimony provides a sordid and sobering view into the pervasive corruption of the Trump administration, his lawyers, and the GOP dark-money infrastructure that sought to “protect the president” at all costs.

          Acting like mobsters protecting their “don,” Trump’s advisers attempted to intimidate, cajole, deceive, bribe, threaten, and use Cassidy Hutchison to conceal the truth about Trump’s criminal effort to overturn the results of the election. It is worth reviewing her story because it previews much of what is to come as special counsel Jack Smith assaults the wall of silence that has protected Trump for too long.

          The remarkable story of Cassidy Hutchinson’s ultimate refusal to commit perjury to “protect her boss” is a testament to Hutchinson’s strength of character and moral courage. Hutchinson did not have the resources to pay for a lawyer to represent her in testimony before the Committee, so she begged her estranged father for a loan so she could hire her own lawyer. She explained to her mother why she did not want to be represented by a “Trump-world” lawyer:

I’m f*****d. I was like, No, I am completely indebted to these people. . . . And they will ruin my life, Mom, if I do anything that they don’t want me to do.

          Per Hutchinson, her Trump-world attorney, Stefan Passantino, would not tell her who was paying for her defense. But he made clear that her job was to protect Trump. She testified that Passantino told her,  

We just want to focus on protecting the President. We all know you’re loyal.

          Hutchinson broke with her Passantino after he counseled her not to correct untruthful testimony in her second examination by the Committee. Hutchinson testified about the moment Passantino told her to lie by saying “I don’t recall” when she did recall the facts elicited by the Committee’s questioning:

I looked at Stefan, and I said, “Stefan, I am f*****d.”

And he was like, “Don’t freak out. You’re fine.”

I said. “No, Stefan, I’m f****d. I just lied.”

And he said, “You didn’t lie.

I said, “No, Stefan. Do you know how many times they just asked me that

question? I just lied.”

And he said, “They don’t know what you know, Cassidy. They don’t know that you can recall some of these things. So you saying ‘I don’t recall’ is an entirely acceptable response to this.”

          If Trump’s corrupt lawyers suborned perjury with Cassidy Hutchison, it is reasonable to infer they provided the same advice to other witnesses. Stefan Passantino will likely be disbarred and prosecuted. If he hopes to avoid a lengthy prison term, he should begin cooperating with special counsel Jack Smith ASAP.

          And so it begins. All it takes is one witness who tells the truth. That allows prosecutors to flip other witnesses up the chain. The walls surrounding the Mafia don are beginning to crumble and he is losing his ability to punish those who betray him. Because of one courageous 26-year-old staffer, the most corrupt president in history may finally be held to account for his crimes and be sentenced to prison.

The Senate passes the omnibus appropriations bill for 2023!

          Whew! That was close! The Senate passed the 2023 omnibus appropriations bill, which will fund the government through September 2023. The House must pass the bill on Friday to avert a government shutdown. See The Hill, Senate passes $1.7 trillion omnibus spending package.

          The bill passed with support from 18 GOP Senators—a fact that provoked the ire of Marjorie Taylor Greene, who tweeted:

18 Republican TRAITORS who voted for the $1.7 TRILLION omnimonster to send YOUR money to defend Ukraine’s border but NOT America’s border!

          It will be a wild two years with a divided Congress and fractured GOP.

A further note on the Electoral Count Reform Act.

          The Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA) was embedded in the omnibus appropriations bill. As I have written about the proposed reform over the last several months, some readers have been skeptical of the ECRA because of opposition to the bill by Marc Elias of Democracy Docket. Elias is the attorney who spearheaded the successful defense of sixty lawsuits filed by Trump in his efforts to overturn the election.

          Elias is an unsung American hero in the defense of democracy, so his opposition to the ECRA should be taken seriously. And it was. After Elias raised objections to provisions of the bill relating to the scope and speed of judicial review of lawsuits relating to presidential elections, Senator Amy Klobuchar amended the proposed bill to address Elias’s objections.

          The final form of the ECRA includes the revisions suggested by Elias, and he now supports the ECRA. See Marc Elias, Democracy Docket, It Is Time to Reform the Electoral Count Act. Elias writes,

It is no secret that I have long been skeptical of efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA). . . . Originally, I opposed the passage of this new bill, which was championed by a group of 16 U.S. senators, because I believed it risked doing more harm than good. . . . That was before Sen. Amy Klobuchar took charge and made significant improvements to the bill. I am thrilled to now support the ECRA and urge both chambers of Congress to pass it as soon as possible.

          The changes made at Elias’s request are too technical to review here, but if you are interested, check out his article above. And if you were skeptical of the ECRA because Marc Elias opposed it, he now supports it. If Marc Elias supports the ECRA, that is high praise, indeed!

Right-wing reaction to Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s speech.

          The reaction of right-wing media and politicians to Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s speech has been revolting. I won’t repeat the disgusting comments, but Cathy Young of The Bulwark surveys the sordid landscape if you are interested. See The Bulwark, Putin’s Useful Idiots: Right Wingers Lose It Over Zelensky Visit.

          What is striking about the right-wing criticism is that it consists only of personal attacks on Zelenskyy—a man who has put his life at risk to lead his country in a courageous battle against Putin and Russia. The right wing could attempt to make principled arguments against future aid for Ukraine, but it has chosen ad hominem attacks instead.

          Why? One explanation may be that right-wing media and politicians have no principled arguments against such aid. I received criticism of my praise for Zelenskyy’s speech in yesterday’s newsletter, which was also in the form of ad hominem attacks. (“You are obviously a brainwashed propagandizing tool of the Military Industrial Complex. . . . Your praise of Zelensky sickened me so much I could not read the rest of your garbage.)

          The now-former subscriber’s criticisms of me were mild compared to the insults heaped on Zelenskyy. The point is that Republicans have replaced political discourse with personal animosity. That is not a winning strategy; indeed, it is self-defeating. Petty insults pale in comparison to Zelenskyy’s bravery and reflect poorly on his critics, who are diminished in his presence. Although it sounds cliché, they will be relegated to the dustbin of history, while Zelenskyy will be long-remembered for his leadership and courage.

Concluding Thoughts.

          As always, there is so much more to cover, but not enough time. I will close this newsletter by expressing my concern for the tens of millions of Americans facing severe cold weather over the next few days. If you need help, do not hesitate to reach out to friends, neighbors, family, and strangers. And if you live near elderly neighbors who may struggle with the cold temperatures and snow, consider calling or visiting to ensure they are safe and well. During times of crisis, there are no red states or blue states. We are a community of citizens acting for the common good.

          I will be in touch tomorrow with a very brief holiday message. My wife and I wish you and your family a blessed and peaceful holiday weekend. Talk to you tomorrow!