The Jan. 6 committee proved that Biden won, but is that really the point?
If the purpose of the Jan. 6 committee was to demonstrate that Joe Biden won the
2020 presidential election definitively and legitimately, it largely accomplished that objective Monday morning. But whether that achieves anything related to the committee’s overall objectives remains to be seen.
Witnesses within former president Donald Trump’s orbit testified via video depositions that they understood and accepted the evidence of the election outcome and attempted to convince Trump that there was no substantial fraud.
Former Fox News editor Chris Stirewalt — whose “decision desk” at Fox made an early call that Arizona was going to Biden — did a good job of explaining why mail-in votes were favoring Democrats, while ballots cast on Election Day favored Republicans. Accordingly, based on the order in which states count their votes — early vs. same day — significant vote swings are normal and to be expected. It’s ironic that Fox News, which unceremoniously fired Stirewalt two months after the election, chose to broadcast Monday morning’s hearing — with Stirewalt’s testimony front and center — after forgoing Thursday’s prime-time opening presentation.
Longtime Republican attorney Ben Ginsberg anchored a second set of witnesses Monday, and he also effectively shot down election fraud allegations. But like the two Republicans appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve on the committee, Liz Cheney, Wyo., and Adam Kinzinger, Ill., Ginsberg was a Trump critic even before the 2020 election, and his comments will be viewed as more of the same by the Trump faithful.
Rudy Giuliani, a former New York mayor whose once sterling reputation has been obliterated by his bombastic and bizarre turn as Trump’s confidant and legal adviser, was further damaged based on others’ testimony. The evidence shows that Giuliani’s influence on Trump’s pursuit of fraud allegations was immense, and his contributions to Trump’s delusional obsessions will forever overshadow his heroic efforts leading New York after the tragedy of 9/11.
Proving to more Americans that Trump really lost the election — despite all the sundry conspiracy theories — would be a valuable service. But demonstrating that Trump knew that he lost is next to impossible. Trump’s ego is such that it might truly be the case that he sincerely thinks the election was stolen.
Pinning much of the committee’s strategy on proving that Trump knew he lost is a tactic fraught with peril. It’s impossible to prove what was in someone’s heart and mind. The goal seems to be that demonstrating that Trump knew his claims of fraud were false makes him legally more culpable in fomenting the Jan. 6 upheaval and means that he represents an ongoing threat.
But it’s a dangerous tightrope in that it suggests that if Trump truly believed there was fraud, his actions might somehow be justifiable. They’re not. Richard Nixon in 1960 and Al Gore in 2000 each set the example of accepting the official outcome despite credible evidence for objecting. Even if Trump goes to his grave believing the 2020 election was stolen, his inability to accept the results after exhausting reasonable legal avenues is an unforgivable dereliction of duty.
After each presidential election, the voluntary participation of the loser in recognizing the winner is the most important example the United States sends to the world — especially when an incumbent loses and undertakes the peaceful transfer of power. That Trump didn’t do that — even if he sincerely believed fraud to be real and demonstrable — is indefensible. Proving that he didn’t believe his own fraud rhetoric is largely beside the point.
The purpose of the Jan. 6 committee is to investigate the origins of the attack on the U.S. Capitol and determine whether anyone — particularly Trump himself — planned and coordinated it. To that end, Monday’s presentation was no less scripted than last Thursday’s prime-time extravaganza. There was no cross-examination of witnesses, no counter to the preordained narrative. The appearance of a carefully choreographed presentation with a preordained result detracts from its credibility.
Thursday’s hearing drew about 20 million viewers. That’s fewer than 1 in 10 adult Americans, according to census figures. It’s a rather paltry audience, considering that the hearing was carried live across ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC and other outlets. By contrast, this year’s State of the Union address drew 38 million viewers. One report noted that the hearing outdrew the Academy Awards, but that shouldn’t have been difficult, considering consistently falling ratings for the Oscars and that the ceremony is carried by just one network.
A recent CNN story noted alarmingly that Trump’s standing with Americans has actually risen since Jan. 6, 2021, and he has been outpolling Biden in matchups. Maybe these hearings will slightly blunt Trump’s resurgence, but unless there’s more opportunity to challenge the one-sided nature of the format, it’s likely they’ll be cheered by Trump’s critics and derided by his supporters — with little to change the perception on either side.