Establishing a coherent story out of Capitol chaos

Attorney General to build on hearing’s work

To understand how Donald Trump’s desperation and lies became a potent danger to democracy in the US, consider the mints. Mints featured in one of the absurdist but toxic episodes fleshed out in the January 6 hearings, which now pause even as the Justice Department presses ahead on a parallel criminal investigation that it calls the most important in its history.

Here’s how one conspiracy theory, in a dark sea of them, was born:

A mother-daughter team at a Georgia elections centre shared the treat during a long election night. Someone videotaped them and chose to believe the mint mother gave to daughter was a USB port.

Trump’s lawyer spread the accusation that the video caught the women using the device to try to corrupt the election against the president.

Frantic to stay in power, Trump ran with the lie. He attacked the mother by name, branded her a “professional vote scammer,” and soon vigilantes showed up at a family home to execute a “citizens’ arrest,” the committee was told.

The episode fed into a web of fabricated stories, melting under scrutiny like snowflakes in a Georgia summer. The hearings illustrated how those stories fuelled the anger of Trump’s supporters, especially those who stormed the Capitol, many armed and out for blood.

Long before the committee called its first witness, scenes of the rampage had been burned into the public consciousness. What new information could possibly come from it? Plenty, it turned out. And as the inquiry continues, with more hearings planned in September, still more evidence is being gathered.

With seven Democrats working with two Republicans on the outs with their party, the committee did what Trump’s two impeachment trials couldn’t — establish a coherent story out of the chaos instead of two partisan ones clawing at each other.

The panel exposed the lengths Trump and his enablers went to keep him in power and the extent to which his inner circle knew his case about a stolen election was bogus. Some told him that to his face; others humoured him.

At every turn the hearings made clear Trump was willing to see the legislative branch of government and democratic processes consumed in the bonfire of his vanities.

He was told the rioters were out to find his vice president, Mike Pence, at the Capitol and hang him. And he was said to believe Pence deserved to be hanged. Trump was told many of his supporters that day bore arms. He didn’t “effing care”.

The committee pinpointed a range of renegade if not criminal options that were floated in the White House as Trump and his allies contemplated an executive order to seize voting machines. “The idea that the federal government could come in and seize election machines, no,” Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, said. “I don’t understand why we even have to tell you why that’s a bad idea for the country.”

Trump leaned on Republican-led states to find more votes for him and/ or appoint fake electors. He hectored Pence to do what he didn’t have the power — or the will — to do, when called upon to certify the election.

When all else failed, Trump told his supporters to “fight like hell”.

Trump’s plotting was foiled by Republicans in the states that mattered, conservative aides, bureaucrats and loyalists-to-a-point who ultimately said no to him.

When Trump pressed his vice president to derail the certification of Joe Biden’s election, Pence said no.

Attention now shifts to the Justice Department, where Attorney General Merrick Garland says its criminal investigation of the matter is its most important ever.

Some legal experts have identified a range of potential crimes for which the ex-president might conceivably be prosecuted. Corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. Conspiracy to defraud the US. Inciting a riot. Even seditious conspiracy.

But these crimes are easier to talk about than to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, especially against a former president and one who might run again. —AP