The best showbiz yet
Analyzing the House Jan. 6 committee hearings has been a special challenge. With that caveat in mind, Thursday’s prime-time spectacle can be summed up as the rare late-entry sequel—the eighth in the series—that surpasses its predecessors, especially measured by its emotional wallop.
While the hearing was, like its predecessors, short on new revelations, this slickly produced drama effectively highlighted Donald Trump’s dereliction of duty as president in his non-response to the riot at the U.S. Capitol. His negligence was magnified by the perverse pleasure he apparently took in watching his supporters attempt to disrupt a constitutional act being overseen by his vice president Mike Pence.
Taking their turn narrating the hearing were two committee members, Reps. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.). Their teleprompter readings were smooth and professional.
More interesting were two former Trump officials who resigned in protest after the Jan. 6 riot. Matthew Pottinger, who served on Trump’s National Security Council, and Sarah Matthews, a former deputy White House press secretary, were wholly believable as young patriots who could no longer in good conscience serve a reckless president in whom they once believed.
Still, even a person guilty of some things might not be guilty of everything. Trump deserves fairness and accuracy in how his actions are depicted. Eight hearings have come and gone, and we have yet to see played the portion of Trump’s Ellipse remarks when he urged the crowd to march “peacefully” to the Capitol. That’s an unfair omission by the committee.
The notion that Trump had the power to call off the insurrection during its earliest stages is debatable. The rioters were fueled by emotion and were likely surprised that they had so easily tumbled into the halls of Congress. They might well have carried on for the next couple of hours regardless of admonitions from Trump.
But the fact remains that Trump had a responsibility to try. He had a duty to strongly condemn the incursion and demand an immediate end to the uprising. Instead, he sat back and enjoyed it. That’s inexcusable.
If these presentations included any effort at balance, someone might have suggested an alternative to the scenario of a meticulously planned military-style insurrection failing to complete its objective and only dispersing when Trump gave the order. What more likely happened was a raucous, poorly organized demonstration run amok, finally abating when everyone got tired and decided to go home. It was still a shameful attack on democracy.
The hearings’ lack of fairness and complete absence of spontaneity are two reasons why they have squandered the opportunity to be taken seriously by anyone not already in the choir. Just as Trump’s rallies are filled with adoring followers who cheer everything he says just because he says it, these hearings have been hailed primarily by those who have little regard for the veracity or relevancy of what is presented as long as it’s critical of Trump.
But the real downside of these presentations—or upside, if you prefer hearings presented showbiz-style—is that if Republicans take over the House next year, as widely predicted, they’ll follow the same template, targeting Democrats with damning Hollywood-style mini-documentaries in the guise of hearings. And, following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lead, they’ll deny committee seats to Democrats they deem potentially disruptive.
That’s for later. The Jan. 6 select committee is promising more episodes between now and November, a logical scenario because these hearings were always as much about distracting everyone from the many domestic problems plaguing voters, with the midterm elections approaching, as about holding the former president accountable and curtailing his future White House hopes.