Jake Tapper had former Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-VA) in the State of the Union classroom. He worked as an advisor to the House January 6th Committee for several months, leaving at the end of April to focus on helping Ukraine.
Before we get into his interview, the Committee is unhappy with Riggleman's appearances on CNN, as Politico noted last Friday. After one interview last week, the Committee's staff director sent an email regarding an "unauthorized" interview. Per the article, the email said Riggleman's appearance was "in direct contravention to his employment agreement." And, of course, Riggleman "sharply disagreed" with that portrayal.
So, in the interest of not piling on to the Committee's dismay, I'll limit my excerpts to Riggleman's exuberance and personal opinions, and omit anything that could be remotely sensitive.
He said that the hearings are "going to be very concise," and "very exciting," and
...I think people are going to be absolutely surprised how much was known... And I think that's what's going to be exciting to see the committee. There's some very talented investigators behind the doors, and even with our teams and things like that and what they found, but, again, the investigators going through the thousands of interviews that they have and all the data and the videos.
I think -- I do think they're going to be very successful in those six -- I think in those six hearings.
And, he has hopes for the rest of us.
... the American people have to look at this from the beginning, take their notes, and understand that the committee has to build a case in a very solid, facts-based way. There's not going to be a lot of partisan whining or screaming. The investigators behind the door are nonpartisan individuals. They're going to present this case in a very cogent way. But the American people need to -- they need to take notes.
Tapper pressed on whether there's some kind of orange-haired smoking gun here. The only part I can comfortably repeat is that Riggleman said there were multiple groups looking at more data than he'd ever seen before - "it's absolutely incredible" - and that the Committee has to put it all together and that's what makes it exciting, and the "talent behind the door" made all of this possible, or something.
He agrees with Rep. Liz Cheney (R- stands for Real Republican) that the GOP has become a personality cult, not a party, and said he doesn't consider himself a Republican anymore. What he saw during his time with the Committee
has even pushed me further away, that the party has moved away from conservative principles to this cult of personality that Liz Cheney is talking about. She's absolutely correct. And when you see it behind the door... it's absolutely stunning, that cult of personality, but also the belief systems, that I don't think any real conservative could follow at any point. It's absolutely insane what people have sort of put their arms around.
I can't agree more with that assessment, even without peeking behind the door.
Down the hall, Margaret Brennan spoke with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Face the Nation. Schiff, you'll recall, was involved in both Trump impeachments, and is a member of the January 6th Committee.
On the DOJ not charging Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, Schiff said it is "very puzzling why these two witnesses would be treated differently than the two" the DOJ decided to prosecute (Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro).
These witnesses have very relevant testimony to offer in terms of what went into the violence of January 6th, the propagation of the big lie, and the idea that witnesses could simply fail to show up. And when the statute requires the Justice Department to present those cases to the grand jury, they don't, is deeply troubling. We hope to get more insight from the Justice Department, but it's a, I think, a grave disappointment and could impede our work if other witnesses think they can likewise refuse to show up with impunity.
He also said there's plenty of stuff they could have testified about that wouldn't come close to executive privilege - things about the campaign, relevant documents and the like.
None of which is protected by privilege. And the idea that you can simply refuse to show up, rather than show up and say, as to this question I'm going to assert a privilege, that just invites others to be in contempt of Congress or be in contempt of judges around the country in other courtrooms. And I think it's a very dangerous precedent to set.
Schiff said he wouldn't comment on any specific witnesses or testimony, but did say
...one of the themes that we will be fleshing out is the fact that in advance of the 6th, that there was an understanding of the propensity for violence that day, of the participation of white nationalist groups, of the effect that the continued propagation of his big lie to rile up the country and rile up the president's base was likely to lead to violence.
Brennan asked if the Committee didn't "run the risk of losing the public's attention" if they fail to "deliver a bombshell" on Thursday. Schiff explained, for Brennan and for the people in the back, that the goal is to "present the narrative of what happened in this country, how close we came to losing our democracy, what led to that violent attack on the 6th."
He said we "know a great deal already, and we've seen "a number of bombshells already," and there more we haven't seen. What's "perhaps most important," he said
is the public hasn't seen it woven together. How one thing led to another. How one line of effort to overturn the election led to another, and, ultimately, led to terrible violence. The first non-peaceful transfer of power in our history. So, we want to tell that comprehensive narrative. And we're aiming at people, an audience, frankly, that still has an open mind about these facts. We want to counter the continuing propagation of big lies. And that's - that's what our goal is.
Sadly, for Brennan and other talking heads, the goal isn't ratings; it's getting the truth out to Americans. Of course, if there isn't a bombshell on Thursday, that'll be the big story on Friday. I swear, these folks must binge-watch shows from the end...
There was also some discussion on the hearings on This Week. George Stephanopoulos had his roundtable gang - Chris Christie, Donna Brazile, New York Times Senior Political Correspondent book author Maggie Haberman, and Julie Pace, executive editor of the AP.
I'm passing by the details of what Haberman talked about in an effort to promote her latest book, and starting instead with Julie Pace saying
I think the real question is, is there any significant segment of the American public that is open to having their minds changed from this?
George said "I find it hard to imagine at the end of these hearings that former president Trump is not going to be in a worse position than he is today." Christie agreed, saying Trump would be hurt by the truth, and "the battle right now... is between the truth and lies." Trump has been lying "both affirmatively in terms of whether the election was stolen or not," and by his silence on his own actions on January 6th.
Donald Trump talks about everything. He's willing to talk (about) almost anything... you've never heard him talk about what he was doing on January 6th while this was going on.
He also said that it was not nuts for Marc Short, Mike Pence's chief of staff, to be concerned that Trump would turn on Pence; that was the environment at the time. George thought that, in and of itself, was nuts, but Christie said
... that environment is something that only people who have been inside of it understand, which is loyalty is a one-way street. It runs only towards Donald Trump. It doesn't run back. And if it does run back, it runs back only if you're doing something which he 100% favors.
Haberman said she was "absolutely blown away" and said it was "breathtaking" when she found out about Short's concerns. Speaking to Christie's point about loyalty, she said
But we're not talking about Donald Trump the businessman, we're talking about a president and a vice president, and that I think is something that Donald Trump had real difficulty understanding over the four years he was in office: that he was serving as president, he wasn't a private citizen anymore and he reportedly acted as if he was in both roles.
I hope, for all our sakes, that people will have their breath taken away by at least one bit of testimony from the hearings, even if they're not forced to hide from a bombshell.
In short, pay attention to this stuff - take notes, like Rep. Riggleman said. There'll be a quiz.
See you around campus.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!