‘Sprint through the finish’: Why the January 6 committee almost didn’t happen
The panel has a highly anticipated hearing on Thursday that is expected to include former Trump White House press aide Sarah Matthews and former deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger. But this will not be the end.
Thursday’s hearing will focus on Trump’s hours of inactivity on Jan. 6, 2021, when a crowd stormed the Capitol and supporters, aides and family members begged him to speak. But in addition, the committee is pursuing several new avenues of inquiry created by its investigation into Trump’s plan to win a second term, from leads provided by high-level witnesses, as well as questions about internal Secret Service communications. . His White House.
So were the lost Secret Service texts a cover-up for treason? It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
Maybe the Benghazi Committee should look into this.
Just Sharpie in “Hillary Clinton” to get GOP buy-in.
University of Chicago professor Robert Pape has spent the past year and a half investigating the January 6 riots — and sounding alarms about the future of democracy. Is America listening?
What Pape and his colleagues have found is that the people who attacked the Capitol were not, as was widely believed, a gathering of rural Donald Trump voters affiliated with far-right groups. With a surprisingly broad base of support for political violence, the movement appears to be much more mainstream than that. CPOST continues to examine the insurgents—their demographics, attitudes, and social connections—to present a more comprehensive picture than has been seen anywhere. This is academic work that aims to rise above partisan ground, though it also intends to have real-world impact. PEP’s stated purpose is not to make policy but to provide important information to those who do, as was the case with CPOST’s previous work on suicide terrorism and domestic ISIS recruitment.
Yet the current state of politics puts Pape and his colleagues in a difficult position. Can a fact-based approach prevail when so many subjects—people who supported overturning a presidential election through violent means—subscribe to a conspiracy theory known as the Big Lie, the claim that the 2020 The election was stolen? Or when other Trump allies, including some very politicians who were forced to evacuate the Capitol, downplayed, even defended, the rebellion? How can researchers avoid the trap of politics when the facts themselves are biased?
The Trump-DeSantis matchup shows cracks in the former president’s control of the Michigan GOP
Support for former President Donald Trump remains strong in Michigan, but there are signs that his influence among Republican voters has waned somewhat, according to a statewide poll commissioned by The Detroit News and WDIV (Channel 4). According to
In a July 13-15 poll of 500 registered voters who said they were likely to vote in the Republican primary in August, a majority indicated they would support another potential re-election campaign by Trump, the Michigan GOP gubernatorial He valued his support in the primary and his assessment of the 2020 election over trusted Michigan Senate Republicans, whose investigation found no evidence of widespread fraud.
But Trump’s approval numbers among Republican primary voters are down about eight points in a May preliminary survey conducted by the Lansing-based Glengarriff Group.
And, in a hypothetical 2024 Republican presidential matchup against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, support for the two Floridians was largely split among Michiganders, with Trump’s slight edge falling within the margin of error, according to The Glengarriff Group. According to the survey conducted.
When asked whether they would support Trump or DeSantis if the presidential election were the day they were contacted, 45% of voters said they would vote for Trump and about 42% said they would vote for DeSantis. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
A cunning plan to thwart a 2024 coup attempt moves quietly forward.
A serious threat to our democracy is this scenario: a state legislature appoints a slate of presidential electors in opposition to the state’s popular vote, and a chamber of Congress controlled by the same party counts those electors. Under current law, those voters would stand, likely signaling a close election.
But now, these senators seem to be moving forward to solve this problem. If they succeed, it would constitute a significant achievement, thanks to a House committee’s focus on President Donald Trump’s attempt to subvert American democracy on January 6.
This week, senators are expected to reach a deal on ECA reform. Trump revealed the ECA’s weaknesses by pressuring his vice president and congressional Republicans to cancel electors appointed for Joe Biden in several states, as part of a plot to appoint new electors for Trump.
How to stop Republicans from running out of questions about Trump
Let us consider the questions thatshouldAZ Gov. has followed
- You did not answer the question. Is Trump incompetent in your judgment?
- Did you read or watch the January 6th committee hearing? Why can’t you judge?
- How can the electorate trust you to defend democracy if you cannot refuse to support the instigator of a coup attempt?
- Is the demand to buy fake voters acceptable?
- Should the Justice Department be pressured to “just say” that the election was fraudulent despite evidence of fraud?
- What would you have done if the Arizona State Legislature had introduced alternative, fictitious electors contrary to the choice of Arizona voters?
- Is it acceptable to call on armed mobs to march on the Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes?
- What about inciting a mob against the Vice President at the Capitol? Is this acceptable?
[Dana] Bash could not have succeeded in eliciting better answers than Ducey with these questions. But what comes first: forcing elected officials to face the truth about our democracy, or wading through the garden of political questions? If one is serious about coverage of democracy, one’s interviewees should not be able to escape responsibility for their party’s role in endangering democracy.
Perry Bacon, Jr./Wapo:
How media coverage drove Biden’s political decline
The sharpest drop in Biden’s approval rating — which dropped from 55 percent in January 2021 to less than 39 percent today — occurred last August, when it dropped nearly five points in a month. No big gas price hikes, no big legislative failures. Biden’s sinking was due to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan – or, rather, the media’s 24/7, overwhelmingly negative coverage of it.
To be clear, Biden deserved the criticism. The initial stages of the US withdrawal were chaotic, with desperate Afghans clinging to US military planes and gathering outside the Kabul airport. The Taliban took control much faster than the administration expected. But for much of August, coverage of Afghanistan dominated the front pages of major newspapers and cable news programs, as if the only thing in the world was a return to chaos. Journalists and outlets lambasted the president, with Axios calling the withdrawal “Biden’s stain,” NBC News correspondent Richard Engel declaring that “history will judge this moment as a very dark time for the United States,” and CNN asked an administration official. On his show, “Isn’t President Biden to blame for this disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan?”
Biden’s poll numbers fell, closely tracking the media hysteria. As The Post’s Dana Milbank wrote in December, data analysis showed a marked increase in negativity in media coverage of Biden beginning last August. After the withdrawal, the media added other events to its “Biden is struggling” narrative: infighting among Democrats over the party’s agenda, poor showings by Democrats in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races, rising inflation, and the Delta. and growth of the omicron. form Biden’s role in these issues was often exaggerated – there are many causes of inflation other than Biden’s policies; The president cannot stop the emergence of coronavirus variants. This anti-Biden coverage pattern remains in place.
Nate Cohn/NY Times:
Key takeaways from our first poll of the 2022 midterms
The results sum up deep voter dissatisfaction and potentially fertile ground for new candidates in 2024.
Many voters do not want to see a 2020 rematch.Mr. Biden still leads Mr. Trump in a hypothetical 2024 matchup, 44 percent to 41 percent. What was surprising: 10 percent of respondents volunteered that they would not vote at all or vote for someone else if they were two candidates, even though the interviewer did not present those options as options.
The midterm race begins right around the corner.With voters almost evenly divided on the general congressional ballot (voters are asked whether they prefer Democrats or Republicans in control of Congress). Given the expectations of a Republican landslide this year, that’s a bit surprising.
Brian Beitler/NY Times:
The Republican ticket is being helped by the last people you would expect
In Arizona, Democrats have intervened on behalf of Kerry Lake, a candidate for governor who lied about the 2020 election and called for the Democratic front-runner to be imprisoned. In Pennsylvania, Democrats ran ads promoting Doug Mastriano, a Christian theologian who participated in the January 6 riots, before running for governor.
To say that in this political climate, the Democratic strategy of tipping the scales for these sycophants and conspiracy theorists has leading liberals worried would be an understatement. MSNBC host Chris Hayescalled it“off one’s nuts.” Barack Obama’s former chief strategist David Axelrod, who once helped orchestrate a similar manipulation, recently wrote that in the Trump era, “I fear strategy.”