I’m going to try something a little different in my look at yesterday’s third day of Select Committee hearings. That’s because I had one, odd takeaway from it all, and I’ve decided to veer off-track and go there. First though, I thought the day was very strong – relentlessly explaining in detail the conversations in the White House trying to get across directly to both Trump and his lawyer John Eastman why their plan to have VP Mike Pence refuse to certify the electoral votes was wildly illegal and even more dangerous – in the immediate realty and long-term to the country. And then showing in the second half after the recess, the knowing efforts that Trump used to stir up insurrectionists and intentionally put the Vice President in physical, violent danger, at one point the rampaging mob getting within 40 feet of his location. The first half, in particular, was heavy on the legal minutiae, spending a lot of time discussing the history of the Constitution and electoral vote counting. Much of that could have been condensed to the one exchange Mike Pence’s lawyer Greg Jacob had, where he discussed a conversation with Trump’s complicit attorney John Eastman (who we learned asked for a pardon, which he didn't get, and when called to testify under oath took the Fifth Amendment over 100 times). That conversation is where Jacob brought up the concept that when Al Gore was running for President, and the electoral vote count came down to the mess in Florida, it was never an issue that Gore – as sitting Vice-President – would even conceivably decide he had the right to throw the election to himself. And his point that Republicans certainly wouldn’t want Vice-President Kamala Harris doing the same for President Biden in 2024. That’s simple, basic, and everyone could get it. Along with the idea that if a Vice-President can overrule the certification of votes, then every Vice-President in history and the future would have done it – and will do it – for their party to stay in office. And there goes democracy. But I found a comment afterwards by legal analyst Neal Katyal on MSNBC. He said that he thought unlike the first two days of the hearings, yesterday he felt that the audience was less the general public and more the Department of Justice. That’s why, he felt, there was so much legalese and talk of case law. Because it was the committee laying out the law for the DOJ. With that in mind, I thought that retired-Judge Michael Luttig leant profound gravitas to the hearings. He’s a judicial icon and likely carried a huge amount of weight for DOJ attorneys. And even for the public, if they didn’t follow everything Judge Luttig was saying, slowly, meticulously and emphatically, the overall point of his substantial gravitas came through. And his closing response about the danger the Trump administration efforts posed to the future of democracy was a lesson of history and law, eloquent and powerful. It was where he addressed that if Pence had followed what Trump wanted him to do, it would have been “tantamount to revolution. And this is the diversion. As deep, serious, important and substantive as yesterday’s hearing was – and it was massively deep, serious, important and substantive -- and there was so much more going on than the little I referenced above, I had that one takeaway that, try as I might, just stuck with me above everything else, critical though it was, the entire time. It’s that every…time…he…spoke…so…profoundly…and…meaningfully, all I could think of was Bob and Ray's classic sketch about the Slow Talkers of America. I'm sorry. I fully understand the importance of the day and the hearings. But if one has a memory for great humor, sometimes it can't help but kick in. (It doesn't seem to play here, but if not, just click on it and you'll be immediately taken to YouTube.)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|