I carefully watched and wrote about each January 6th Committee hearing. The report is as long as a 19th Century Russian novel. Like a big meal, it takes time to digest its 845 pages of dense narrative and footnotes. It’s not something one can skim. Then there’s all the supporting documents including deposition transcripts.
I’ve read the whole damn report but only *some* of the transcripts. There are so only so many hours in the day. Plus, the only staff I have are cats and they’re inclined to view me as their employee, not employer. Shorter Adrastos: It’s a slog.
Overall, the committee has done an excellent job BUT there’s been too much smack talk coming from some of them and their most ardent supporters in the punditocracy. Trash talking DOJ isn’t the way to get them to indict. One of the loudest cable pundits has been former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill on MSNBC. The mealy-mouthed ex-solon has taken to yelling about DOJ on teevee. It’s rich and not in a good way. After 12 years of fearing her own voters, she’s become a fearless scold. In the immortal words of Joey B Shark: Come on, man.
Several committee members have described their insurrection case as a slam dunk. It is not. They have unearthed some compelling evidence BUT much of it is hearsay thereby inadmissible in court. The whole “Trump wanted to go to the Capitol” story rests on second-hand testimony by Cassidy Hutchinson. I believe her testimony, but it needs corroboration by people who were present during the tantrum. DOJ needs someone to flip and confirm this crucial story.
Other aspects of the “day of” testimony need confirmation as well. 187-minutes of dereliction is the title of Chapter 7 of the report. It’s catchy but inaction on the part of the Impeached Insult Comedian is not actionable in court without more support. That’s a slam dunk case?
The J6 Committee has met the civil case burden of a preponderance of the evidence BUT DOJ must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a tall order, especially in a case involving a former president. The evidence for the other charges referred by the committee is stronger but still needs fleshing out. I think the fake electors case is the strongest by far. Special Counsel Jack Smith has his work cut out for him.
The Mar-a-Lago documents case remains stronger as of this writing. The Kaiser of Chaos cannot be indicted on Dipshit Insurrection charges just because people hate him. I hate him too, but the Omar Little maxim still applies:
I wish the committee and its supporters would remove “slam dunk” from their lexicon. I love Jamie Raskin, but he used it last night on All In with Chris Hayes. I have no issue with slam dunk as a hoops phrase but in our political discourse it reminds me of this:
About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a “slam dunk case” that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward.
That declaration was “very important” in his decision making, according to “Plan of Attack,” which is being excerpted this week in The Post.
George Tenet is one of the few prominent Greek Americans I don’t embrace as a countryman. He was a disaster as CIA director and his shitty advice accelerated W’s rush to war with Iraq. Slam dunk is not a phrase that anyone should use in the context of Dipshit Insurrection prosecutions. Besides, there’s no such thing as a slam dunk in a criminal case unless you have DNA evidence or the proverbial smoking gun.
I’ll have more on the J6 Committee’s report in the coming weeks. It’s the holidays for fuck’s sake.
Repeat after me; Don’t say slam dunk.
The last word goes to Robert Cray: