What is the purpose of these public hearings? To improve the public profile of those involved? If the hearings are not accompanied by immediate announcement of charges by DoJ, this dog-and-pony show will be a distant memory by Nov 2022 (let alone 2024). I wish the Jan 6 committee and the DoJ would coordinate to make this happen. Perhaps …
What is the purpose of these public hearings? To improve the public profile of those involved? If the hearings are not accompanied by immediate announcement of charges by DoJ, this dog-and-pony show will be a distant memory by Nov 2022 (let alone 2024). I wish the Jan 6 committee and the DoJ would coordinate to make this happen. Perhaps also create special courts to deal with those charged and speed up the process. If some of these vile characters are as bad as we are being told, there has to be a sense of purpose and urgency in dealing with them and their actions related to the insurrection. The way these hearings are planned currently is more appropriate for a much anticipated movie/album release, not for something that should be a collective, national emergency. I understand due process and all (& am not advocating for compromising any of that), but the response/actions hitherto betrays lack of seriousness.
The Watergate hearings were first; the indictments came next. And yes, they should be prime time on every channel, same as Watergate. It was the hearings that got Nixon out. And they should have already begun - it takes time to get through to people's heads that 1/6 was really a coup attempt - far worse than Watergate.
Actually it was the release of the tapes, after the hearings concluded, that Nixon sought to withhold. The tapes showed he conspired with his aides to convince the FBI to halt the investigation of the break-in. The tapes were made public. That caused his loss of support with Rs, and that's what convinced him to resign. See https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/05/watergate-smoking-gun-tape-released-aug-5-1974-753086.
No pundits think there's going to be such dramatic evidence of Trump's complicity, so these hearings will not take him down.
I'm heartened to hear you think the hearings will influence voters to vote against Republicans. They would be only the 25% of R voters who do NOT believe the election was stolen and the 30% of the electorate who is independent. The 75% of Rs who believe the election was stolen will not believe anything they hear from the Committee, yes?
1. That's not my take. It's history's, as the link I provided shows.
I doubt Dean would disagree. His testimony was in the early days of the hearings, June, 1973. Nixon held on until August, 1974 when Dean's testimony was corroborated by the release of the tapes. Yes, his testimony tipped prosecutors to question witnesses along this line, so he contributed, but had the SC not forced Nixon to release the tapes, who knows what would have happened?
2. It was Eva who noted the hearings. I was responding to that. Not to Trump being indicted.
Re the Rs then and the Rs now - there is so much more support for Trump among the R voters than there was for Nixon. His approval rating was below 30% before he resigned. That is what the R politicians respond to. Put the blame on the Trump supporters, not the R politicians.
Of course coordination should not imply something nefarious and if the DoJ or Congress aren't convinced about something they hear from the J6 committee, they need not act on it.
Given the attention span of the viewers/electorate, it is important to not only communicate the narrative of how Jan 6th came about and the actions that led to the inssurection but also what the response is going to be. That is the part that needs to be coordinated. The response could be a combination of DoJ and legislative proposals that will be taken up immediately. Perhaps DoJ/congress need their own prime time slots to explain to the nation how they plan to respond.
I'm afraid without an articulation of the response from DoJ and Congress (or at least how they plan to respond), the hearings will be entertaining for a few days but an exercise in futility.
The hearings are likely to present devastating evidence against Trump and his GOP collaborators. If the evidence pertained to a Dem, the GOP would move heaven and earth to have them indicted. What we see is that the GOP is already poisoning the well. In a sideways admission that the evidence is indeed devastating, Jim Jordan is out there claiming the J6 committee fabricated it.
Didn't the DOJ request all the docs from the hearings? And the reaction from the Committee was tepid at best. They did all the work, and now DOJ wants to swoop in and take it? I don't fear coordination between these two entities. They are cooperating, of course, but not coordinating a la Barr and tRump.
What is the purpose of these public hearings? To improve the public profile of those involved? If the hearings are not accompanied by immediate announcement of charges by DoJ, this dog-and-pony show will be a distant memory by Nov 2022 (let alone 2024). I wish the Jan 6 committee and the DoJ would coordinate to make this happen. Perhaps also create special courts to deal with those charged and speed up the process. If some of these vile characters are as bad as we are being told, there has to be a sense of purpose and urgency in dealing with them and their actions related to the insurrection. The way these hearings are planned currently is more appropriate for a much anticipated movie/album release, not for something that should be a collective, national emergency. I understand due process and all (& am not advocating for compromising any of that), but the response/actions hitherto betrays lack of seriousness.
The Watergate hearings were first; the indictments came next. And yes, they should be prime time on every channel, same as Watergate. It was the hearings that got Nixon out. And they should have already begun - it takes time to get through to people's heads that 1/6 was really a coup attempt - far worse than Watergate.
Actually it was the release of the tapes, after the hearings concluded, that Nixon sought to withhold. The tapes showed he conspired with his aides to convince the FBI to halt the investigation of the break-in. The tapes were made public. That caused his loss of support with Rs, and that's what convinced him to resign. See https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/05/watergate-smoking-gun-tape-released-aug-5-1974-753086.
No pundits think there's going to be such dramatic evidence of Trump's complicity, so these hearings will not take him down.
I'm heartened to hear you think the hearings will influence voters to vote against Republicans. They would be only the 25% of R voters who do NOT believe the election was stolen and the 30% of the electorate who is independent. The 75% of Rs who believe the election was stolen will not believe anything they hear from the Committee, yes?
Well, I'm glad you think they will be persuaded to not vote R.
1. That's not my take. It's history's, as the link I provided shows.
I doubt Dean would disagree. His testimony was in the early days of the hearings, June, 1973. Nixon held on until August, 1974 when Dean's testimony was corroborated by the release of the tapes. Yes, his testimony tipped prosecutors to question witnesses along this line, so he contributed, but had the SC not forced Nixon to release the tapes, who knows what would have happened?
2. It was Eva who noted the hearings. I was responding to that. Not to Trump being indicted.
Re the Rs then and the Rs now - there is so much more support for Trump among the R voters than there was for Nixon. His approval rating was below 30% before he resigned. That is what the R politicians respond to. Put the blame on the Trump supporters, not the R politicians.
What politicians want, #1, whether GOP or Dem, is to be reelected. Yes or no?
You mean back in the day when Americans were citizens first, and party affiliates second?
Sadly, agree.
Really - if Nixon were JD Vance, he would've said to the Court, "Come and get 'em."
Of course coordination should not imply something nefarious and if the DoJ or Congress aren't convinced about something they hear from the J6 committee, they need not act on it.
Given the attention span of the viewers/electorate, it is important to not only communicate the narrative of how Jan 6th came about and the actions that led to the inssurection but also what the response is going to be. That is the part that needs to be coordinated. The response could be a combination of DoJ and legislative proposals that will be taken up immediately. Perhaps DoJ/congress need their own prime time slots to explain to the nation how they plan to respond.
I'm afraid without an articulation of the response from DoJ and Congress (or at least how they plan to respond), the hearings will be entertaining for a few days but an exercise in futility.
The hearings are likely to present devastating evidence against Trump and his GOP collaborators. If the evidence pertained to a Dem, the GOP would move heaven and earth to have them indicted. What we see is that the GOP is already poisoning the well. In a sideways admission that the evidence is indeed devastating, Jim Jordan is out there claiming the J6 committee fabricated it.
Didn't the DOJ request all the docs from the hearings? And the reaction from the Committee was tepid at best. They did all the work, and now DOJ wants to swoop in and take it? I don't fear coordination between these two entities. They are cooperating, of course, but not coordinating a la Barr and tRump.