7 questions I want the Jan. 6 committee to answer at its upcoming
hearings
Columnist|
June 12, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. EDT
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.
