Within Hearing Distance: Day 7

I thought the first two hours of yesterday’s Select Committee hearing were galvanizing.  And sickening, as well, at the meticulous details of the infamously demented, conspiratorial December 18 meeting with Trump knowingly seeking out the craziest “advisers” to push forward his coup attempt and secretly push to attract crowds on January 6 to attack the Capitol and involve extremist groups.

Crazy, in that the group included lawyer Sidney Powell who comes across in her recorded testimony far more insane on camera than even when she had summoned The Kraken and lost 60 lawsuits and even told a judge that no reasonable person could believe what she was saying.  So crazy that she's the one in that very meeting who suggested seizing voting machines.  And crazy that Trump actually took the first step to naming her Special Counsel with security clearance.

Crazy, too, since the group included now-pardoned Michael Flynn who was calling for martial law, as well as most anything else that's on the lunatic menu, later exhorting the mob to action on January 6.

And crazy, also, since the meeting was described in witness Cassady Hutchinson's contemporaneous notes as "unhinged.  But then, what can you expect when Rudy Giuliani was there, too.

And “advisers” in quotes because they included the guy who had been the CEO of Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne.  It makes you wonder why Mr. MyPillow wasn't there, advising, too.

But then, that all these four were advising Trump about anything, including what do serve at lunch, let alone overthrowing the government, is craziest and most dangerous of all.

This is who Trump was intentionally listening to while intentionally ignoring the actual experts who actually knew what they were talking about and were actually giving him actual advice.

My favorite quote of the day may have been when Liz Cheney said that “Trump is a 76 year-old man, he is not an impressionable child.”  I got the sense that that was directed exactly to Trump. And then she added, “Just like the rest of us, he is responsible for his own actions.  No rational or sane man in his position could disregard that information and reach to the opposite conclusion.  And Donald Trump cannot escape responsibility by being willfully blind.”

It was also notable when, at the very end, Liz Cheney brought up someone contacting an upcoming witness, with the suggestion that it was Trump and that he was witness tampering.  And this has been getting a great amount of attention, as well it should, especially for the Select Committee.  But I also think that too many analysts are making too big a legal deal out of it – since they’re overlooking that the only direct evidence is the White House phone logs.  And though the person can testify what was said, that’s still only one side of the conversation, which the other can deny.  Furthermore, as both Dan Goldman (lead attorney on the first impeachment) and David N. Kelley, the former U.S. Attorney in charge of the Southern District of New York, said on MSNBC, phone logs by themselves are pretty much are useless as evidence. Goldman also commented that it appears it could have been an intermediary making the call, not Trump, making it even more difficult to indict him.

I have a friend whose head has been exploding waiting for some action by the DOJ, waiting for subpoenas, waiting for a Grand Jury to be called.

For better or worse, though, that doesn’t appear to be how Merrick Garland ever works.  I remember a reporter from Oklahoma saying he’d written a long article about how the DOJ wasn’t doing enough in the Oklahoma City bombing case (that Garland oversaw), and only a day or two later about 15 indictments came down.  The reporter said no one had any idea that the DOJ was that close. 

I’m not saying that Garland is right here –- I too wish there was more and subpoenas --  but just that that’s how he operates.  So, I don’t expect anything different and can only grit my teeth and hope dearly that he’s doing what I think he’s doing.

After the hearing, most attorneys I heard on TV were saying that they thought there was enough evidence that the DOJ could bring subpoenas and even indict Trump.  But what they think could be done legally is likely different from what Merrick Garland thinks the DOJ needs.  After all, though two attorneys on Joy Reid’s show said that while they thought there was enough to open a case, they also said – “But whether there’s enough to convict, I’m not there yet.”  And since this is going against a former president, I’ve long sensed Garland likely feels as Attorney General that his needs are very different and has wait until he has enough to convict.

As I’ve written here in the past, I’m sure the DOJ is aware that it’s one thing to change someone with a crime and knowing you can convict them…and trying a former President of the United States with a crime and knowing you can convict him.  That a jury likely does not want to convict any former president, whoever he is, so if you are going to charge Trump you had better have every single piece of evidence incontrovertible and locked down solid beyond any conceivable shadow of a doubt.  And that’s a much, much higher standard than having the evidence.  It’s the “If you’re going after the king, you’d better get him” thing. 

I just think it’s also important that everyone watching the hearings remember that all of what we hear, totally damning as it is, is not necessarily material that can be used as evidence in a court case.  It might be hearsay.  It might not be relevant to the specific charge.  It might be, for example, just a phone log.

All that said, I’d love to see subpoenas and grand juries, and I certainly feel it’s extremely important Trump be charged so that not only future presidents, but any people of this coup know you’re not above the law if you try this again, so do not try it.

My friend was also greatly troubled by the recent NY Times story about the DOJ being surprised by the Cassady Hutchinson testimony, which suggests they’re far behind the committee and too narrow in their investigation, which is how it’s being perceived in the news.  And I’m also somewhat troubled by it.  But the reason I’m “somewhat” troubled and not fully troubled is because of two things –

First, I don’t know who reporters were talking to at the DOJ and what the attorney completely meant by being caught off guard.  Was he surprised by it, or was the entire team?  The second thing, though, is much more substantive and I think has been overlooked by many – it’s keeping in mind that until her public testimony, Cassady Hutchinson hadn’t said anything close to what she when testifying live.  She’d previously had a different lawyer and had been very cautious in her earlier testimony.  So, only until after she changed lawyers and finally spoke in public a week ago, that was the first time she’d said any of this.  And so, it was almost as new to the committee as it was to the DOJ.  The committee probably talked to her a few days or a week before to get a sense of what she’d say and to prepare, but it wasn’t like they were sitting on this for a month.

So, yes, I’m somewhat troubled the DOJ didn’t know.  But until only days before, no one knew.

There is one prosecutorial matter that really does bother me a great deal.  But it’s not with the Department of Justice.  It’s that the head of the NYC District Attorney’s office dropped the case against Trump, which so upset the two lead lawyers on it that they quit. What little we know, I’m still bothered by that one.

And I'm also bothered that the Army hasn not yet reactivated now-pardoned, former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn so that they can strip him of his rank and court-martial him.

What I’m not bothered by is the great, riveting, detailed, damning job on unearthing the efforts and crimes by Trump and his enablers trying to stage a coup and overthrow democracy.