I read an article in the FT headed, “Cheney Burnishes Profile with Trump Hearings.” (FT 23/7/22) I have seen similar articles in American publications and if I had seen this in the New York Times or the Washington Post it would not have surprised me. I have to say that I was a bit taken aback to see it in the FT and I thought that anyone who wasn’t following US politics would have been misled by the lack of context in the article. If the point of the article was only to say that Liz Cheney had benefited from Prime Time exposure I could have lived with that as a premise but challenged it as a fact. I think that it is more than wishful thinking on behalf of the quoted Democratic Congressman who suggests that the Liz Cheney Committee will save the Dems in the mid terms. The fact that this attempt to divert attention away from the President’s miserable performance, has failed is reflected in the Yahoo, YouGov poll which put Trump above Biden if the election was held today.
The article started out by describing Cheney’s determination to end Trumps political career but doesn’t explain that she is part of the ‘never Trumpers’ wing of the Republican Party. The Committee’s verdict has already been decided in advance of the hearing and her role in massaging the evidence to try to convict Trump has won much praise from his enemies. Reference to her being “..the star of the show” and it being thanks to her that, “we now have this weight of evidence in favour of prosecuting Trump.” (FT 23/7/22) are evidence of this. The fact that the Hearings are very much a Show and not a Trial is underlined by the appointment of James Goldston to produce the TV episodes. His mission is to, “hone a mountain of explosive material into a captivating multimedia presentation for a prime-time hearing,” (Axios, 6/6/22)
“Jan. 6 committee enlists media chief who buried Epstein scandal to dramatize prime-time hearing” BLAZETV STAFF, June 08, 2022
It should be impossible to mention the January 6th Committee and Liz Cheney without detailing it’s purely partisan and corrupt structure. The fact that a Congressional Committee is not allowed to pursue criminal charges is ignored by Cheney and the Democrats but the objective is clear. An example of this is the Cassidy Hutchinson episode where her ‘evidence’ was brought, at short notice, to prime time television but it turned out to be another bombshell that failed to ignite. From the start her every sentence seemed to be qualified by, ” he said something to the effect of …”. A first year trial Lawyer would have asked, ” But I am asking you what he did say.” But there was no cross examination because the entire committee, Judge and Jury was made up of people who had voted for Trumps impeachment. A unbiased Judge would have ruled out most of her ‘testimony’ because it was hearsay and as it turns out was contested by the people she quoted. The dramatic wrestling match between an unfit President and three secret service agents in the Presidential SUV has been declared untrue by the agents present. A note, written by Hutchinson and identified by her as being in her handwriting has been claimed by Eric Herschmann to have been written by him. Surely this could be resolved by recalling Eric Herschmann and the agents but the Committee declined to do this, why? Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (see note)
It is clear that the American public would like an unbiased investigation about Jan 6 and also the summer of BLM riots that proceeded it. They would be interested in finding out how the Capital Police was so unprepared; what role the FBI played especially given it’s involvement in the Governor Whitman case; who is Ray Epps; did the Capital Police start the violence and so many other questions. Many of these questions could be answered by releasing the 14,000 hours of CCTV and body cam video that the DOJ refuses to release. Why? The American public should be able to make up their own mind based on all testimony being released to public view and all witness’s being cross examined by the Congressmen that were nominated by the Republicans. Instead we have little bits of testimony selectively leaked to the public or testimony of the quality of Cassidy Hutchinson.
There is no smoking gun, either figuratively or literally. “As of last month, according to the Justice Department, about 80 Capitol protesters have been charged with possessing a “dangerous or deadly weapon.” Examples of those weapons include pepper spray, flags, walking sticks or batons, a helmet, a taser, and a fire extinguisher—hardly the kind of items that could be successfully used in overthrowing the government.” Julie Kelly 5/7/22
Much of the evidence is already known to the public but the Cheney’s Committee has attempted to stitch together a story that falls apart at the slightest challenge. If we take the snippets and highly edited pieces of Trumps speeches, that make up the montage of ‘evidence’ supporting an insurrection charge, we can apply a simple test to see whether the attendees on that day saw it as a call to arms or, merely Trumpian rhetoric. Estimates of the numbers attending the rally vary widely, mainly on partisan lines. If we take a mid point between the Law Enforcement and Associated Press estimates we come to a crowd of 40,000. (See note) If we round up the numbers arrested for Jan 6 offences, we are currently around 850, we can say that 98% of those attending were not incited to insurrection. I understand that this is a very rough and ready test, perhaps the crowd number should be higher or lower. Certainly, the majority of charges are for parading and trespassing, not charges usually associated with insurrection but the conclusion still stands.
So why so much discussion on the partisan committee, when the article merely commented on Liz Cheney’s, new found, popularity amongst the left? Two reasons. The first is that this show trial would be impossible without her enthusiastic support and this corrupt Commission will be what she will be remembered for. Therefore, writing about Liz Cheney and not exposing the Committee is a little like discussing Nixon without exploring Watergate. The second is that I would partly agree with the articles conclusion that a Republican candidate, such as DeSantis, would benefit the most from these proceedings. However, there is another possibility that given the current Presidents inability to succeed on any issue, that it may result in a call for a strong leader which would favour Trump in 2024. It would be somewhat ironic if Liz Cheney lit the fuse that propelled Trump to a second term.
Notes
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter. Wikipedia
Rally Numbers: “Rally organizers told the National Park Service that they anticipated 30,000 people would attend. Law enforcement said the crowd size ahead of the protest was possibly as much as 80,000, according to then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The crowd size at the rally was at least 10,000, according to the Associated Press.” L.A. Times, Key facts to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection, The facts you need to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection and its fallout – Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
Sources
Cheney Burnishes Profile with Trump Hearings, Kiran Stacey, Financial Times, 23/7/22
Yahoo News/YouGov poll Yahoo Tabs | PDF | Fox News | Msnbc (scribd.com)
Another January 6 Lie: No ‘Armed Mob’ Julie Kelly 5/7/22 Another January 6 Lie: No ‘Armed Mob’ › American Greatness (amgreatness.com)
Scoop: Jan. 6 committee’s secret adviser, Mike Allen, Axios AM, 6/6/2022
,