Senate page Jan. 06
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Today, of course, is the first anniversary of the 1/6 insurrection. It's also just a shade over 6 months since the
United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack was constituted (the resolution was passed on June 30, the
members were appointed July 1). And though it may seem that Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and his colleagues are working
slowly, they've actually made rapid progress given how much red tape is involved in something like this, and given how
much resistance they've faced from (some of) the people in Donald Trump's orbit. Indeed, it is useful to take this
opportunity to review the 10 most important things the Committee has already accomplished:
- Compelling Testimony: The opening act, as it were, came on July 27 of last year, when the
committee welcomed four police officers—Daniel Hodges, Michael Fanone, Harry Dunn, and Aquilino Gonell—to
testify publicly. The quartet gave
of their experiences that made very clear that the crowd on 1/6 was violent, racist, and anti-cop. This gutted that
narrative that the rioters were just tourists who got a little boisterous.
- Big Fish, Little Fish: The Committee has gone after a wide variety of witnesses from the
Trump administration, ranging from humble foot soldiers all the way up to some of the generals. As a general rule,
Thompson & Co. start gentle, and then get more assertive if cooperation is not forthcoming. Multiple hundreds of
people have been contacted for documents or testimony or both, at least 58 people
and the Committee is clearly not finished.
- Cooperation: The resisters, like Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows, tend to get the headlines.
However, the majority of people contacted by the Committee have been cooperative. Close to 300 interviews have been
conducted, in fact, and more are scheduled for January. The folks in Mike Pence's orbit
particularly accommodating, reportedly. Pence himself was invited to appear earlier this week; he has not yet
- Documentation: In addition to all of the witness testimony, the Committee has collected a
mountain of documentation. At least 100 people have turned over phone records, and multiple thousands of text messages
have also been acquired. There are also some smoking-gun-type items,
like the PowerPoint presentation
that circulated among senior Trumpers and that laid out a strategy for overturning the election results.
- Contempt of Congress: Some witnesses have cooperated out of a sense of duty and public
spirit. Others have scores to settle (which probably explains why Pence loyalists are eager to throw Trump under the
bus). However, there are many people who won't testify unless they must in order to save their necks. That is where
Contempt of Congress comes in. Over the past 20 years, and in particularly over the past 4, it's been unclear whether
that crime had real teeth, or if it was just a quaint notion. The Committee has gone after several defiers for contempt,
and the Department of Justice backed their play, such that at least two people—Steve Bannon and Mark
Meadows—are facing criminal charges.
- Putting the Screws to Trump, Part I: The Committee hasn't gotten any testimony or other
cooperation from Trump yet. Indeed, it's not yet clear if they will even try. However, the members have done a pretty
good job of putting him on trial in the court of public opinion, and they have made it very clear that he was either an
active participant in schemes to overturn the election or, at very least, was guilty of
dereliction of duty.
- Putting the Screws to Trump, Part II: Meanwhile, Trump might not give anything to the Committee
voluntarily, but the documents he and his underlings created while he was president are (probably) not under his control.
Joe Biden, whose control they (probably) are under, has already agreed to share with the Committee. Trump has lost three
rounds of lawsuits on the matter, and now has only the Supreme Court to save him, encumbered by a legal argument that
across the country
is either laughable or dangerous. Either way, Trump might well meet his legal Waterloo in the next week or two.
- What Went On, Part I: Both the Committee and The Washington Post
have thrown light
on the "headquarters" at the Willard Hotel, which served as a command center as key Trump allies—Rudy Giuliani,
Bernard Kerik, John Eastman, Bannon, and others—tried to manage the overturning of the election. The folks at the
Willard were in constant contact with the White House as they plotted and schemed.
- What Went On, Part II: The Committee hasn't released all the juicy details, as yet, but the
they have "firsthand" knowledge of exactly what happened in the Oval Office in the fateful 187 minutes between the
Capitol being stormed and order being restored. Apparently, lower-level White House functionaries who were not a part of
the plotting, but who did have access to the Oval Office on 1/6, have painted a pretty thorough picture.
- Guilty Parties: A lot of people are badly exposed, both in terms of damage to their
careers, and also possible criminal liability. There are, of course, the folks whose identities were known from the
moment the insurrection began, like Meadows, Giuliani, and Bannon. In addition, the last 6 months have seen others
is Sean Hannity, but before him it was (possibly) Rick Perry, and several sitting members of Congress, among others.
So, the Committee really has gotten a lot done in just 6 months. And the American public
what the members are doing—82% of Democrats, 58% of independents, and even 40% of Republicans. Presumably,
Bennie Thompson, et al., would soldier on even if they ended up being more widely hated than the New Coke, but that sort
of political cover certainly makes life easier.
The Committee's goal is to issue a final report late this summer, at which point the ball will presumably be
in the Department of Justice's court. And it would appear that the DoJ is ready and willing to take that ball
and run with it (see below). (Z)
We read several articles about AG Merrick Garland's plan to "speak on 1/6." And it we misunderstood the
meaning of them, thinking he would be talking about 1/6 on January 6th. So, that's how we wrote it up yesterday
(before going back and correcting it thanks heads-up from readers L.R. in Easton, PA, and A.R. in Los Angeles, CA).
In truth, the speech was given at 2:30 ET yesterday afternoon. And it was...enlightening.
Should you have a large supply of caffeine, and wish to watch the speech, it is
Should you wish to read it, it's
In our view, there were four main topics of discussion. In order:
- Civics Lesson: Clearly, the AG is aware of, and is sensitive to, criticism that he and his
department are not doing enough, particularly when it comes to the insurrection's kingpins. And so, he made the same
point about the DoJ that we make about the 1/6 Committee on the above item: These things take time and, in fact, a great
deal of progress has been made. Garland explained that it's usually the low-level offenders, recipients of the lightest
sentences, who get nailed first. That is because in more complicated cases it takes more time to collect evidence, build
a case, and prosecute that case. It is also because the lesser offenders, often in exchange for a lighter sentences,
give key information on the offenders higher up the food chain. In short, the AG made the argument that the system is
working exactly as it is supposed to.
- By The Numbers: In other to further make his point that progress is being made, Garland
listed numerous specific numbers in the address that serve as hard data in support of his assessment. Among those data
points: 5,000 subpoenas have been issued; 2,000 devices have been seized; 20,000 hours of video footage has been
reviewed; 15 TB of data has been examined; 300,000 tips from citizens have been received; 725 people have been arrested
and charged (325 of them have been charged with felonies) and 145 defendants have pled guilty (20 of them to felony
crimes). There are 40 people who face conspiracy charges (a biggie, but one that takes a while to prosecute), and 17 of
them are scheduled for trial in the near future.
- A Call to Action: The speech was addressed to the 115,000 employees of the DoJ, and so
there was a fair bit of "thanks for your hard work" and a fair bit of "rah rah," too. About two-thirds of the way
through, Garland really went for it, reiterating his already implied promise that bigger fish are going to fry, and that
nobody is beyond reach of the long arm of the law when the future of the democracy is at stake. "There cannot be
different rules for the powerful and the powerless," he observed, while also making clear that the DoJ investigations
will continue for "as long as it takes and whatever it takes for justice to be done." The AG did not mention Donald
Trump by name, but that's certainly the person everyone was thinking of when they heard that part.
- History Lesson: The final portion of the speech covered ongoing and future threats to
democracy, during which Garland made specific mention of key legal precedents and historical events. Broadly, he made
clear that he and his team are aware of these threats and that everything will be done to counter them. Specifically, he
said that the DoJ would work to protect voting rights. He also implied that other forms of election chicanery would be
dealt with strongly and swiftly.
Will this speech silence Garland's critics? We do not know. However, it should be very clear that the DoJ is far from
done here, and that there are plenty of folks who should be very nervous.
Meanwhile, with Garland having said his piece, and Trump having canceled his presser, that leaves center stage for
Joe Biden to occupy all by himself as he delivers remarks today. Well, he and Kamala Harris, who also has a speech
scheduled. There are a couple of members of Congress, a duo more interested in performance than doing their jobs, who
also have some sort of song and dance planned. We mention them so readers are aware of it, but we don't particularly
feel like giving them oxygen by naming them or linking to a story about them. They're both Southerners whose last name
starts with 'G,' if you are wondering if your guess is on target. (Z)
One last item about coups and would-be coups before we put such matters aside for today. We still have multiple items
planned on the subject of the slow-moving coup (a four-part series thus far), but we think readers can countenance only
so many coup items per day before it becomes too much.
Anyhow, as we have noted before, both in items about the present and about past disputed elections,
the clear Achilles heel
in the presidential election process is the certification of the result in Congress. The Constitution twice says "The
President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and
the votes shall then be counted," but offers no guidance beyond that. The
Electoral Count Act,
passed in 1887 in response to the disastrous election of 1876 and the two razor-thin elections thereafter, endeavored
to fill in many of the gaps.
There are two problems with the Electoral Count Act, however. The first is that it's kind of sloppy, making it too
easy to challenge states' electoral votes without justification. The second is that it's not entirely clear that a
current Congress can pass a law that binds a future Congress. And even if they can, what happens if that future Congress
simply ignores the law? Who punishes that sort of lawbreaking, and how do they do it?
In short, it's a real pickle for those who are worried about the possibility of a coup, and would like to try to
forestall it. The ideal circumstance would be to amend the Constitution, but that's not going to happen, of course. At
least, not anytime soon, given the requirement that three-quarters of the state legislatures sign off.
The next best option is to try to patch the Electoral Count Act, something that the Democrats have been talking about
since, well, January 6, 2021. And on Wednesday, they got a sliver of good news, namely that there might be some
Republican support in the Senate for doing that. Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
that "[The Electoral Count Act] obviously has some flaws. And it is worth, I think, discussing." That's pretty
cautious, but it's way better than "no way, no how." Reportedly, potential flies-in-the-ointment Joe Manchin (D-WV) and
Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) also support fixing up the Act, as do several Republican senators besides McConnell.
It is not terribly surprising that McConnell should take this position (if tentatively). He has no love for Trump or
any other would-be authoritarians. Further, McConnell's power and influence comes from the fact that the rules say he
has power and influence. Trump had to work with the Kentuckian because that was necessary to getting things passed
through Congress. But if the rules and the Constitution are set aside (or largely set aside), then McConnell's power is
diminished or destroyed.
Again, fixing the Electoral Count Act is not a panacea. But it is a step in the right direction, and an affirmation
of the rule of law, and those are no small things. Further, if McConnell (and others) are willing to shore up the
process, then they are surely not willing to sit idly by and watch it be hijacked in 2024. And if there are 55-60
senators willing to hold the line, that makes any coup plans rather more tricky. (Z)
At this point, we have noted several times that the redistricting process has not been the disaster that the Democrats
feared. Republicans squeezed most of the available red juice during the last cycle, and they've generally preferred to play
it safe this cycle. Democrats, by contrast, have managed to discover some blue juice to be squeezed in places like
Illinois. And the various independent commissions have generally produced results that are between "tolerable" and
"kind of favorable" for Democrats.
The good people at Cook Political Report
have crunched the numbers,
and can now put a finer point on how things are going for Team Donkey. Thus far 293 districts are finalized, or soon
will be. And of those, Joe Biden carried 161. That's roughly four more than he would have carried under the previous
maps. Further, a total of 15 seats have gone from Republican-leaning to Democratic-leaning, while just nine have gone in
the other direction.
Things could also get better for the Democrats. Republicans' remaining gerrymandering opportunities are somewhat
limited—maybe a seat in Florida, but that's about it. On the other hand, the Democrats could pick up several seats
in New York, depending on how aggressive the Empire State's maps end up being drawn. Further, the 293 "finalized"
districts include Ohio and North Carolina, where court challenges have been lodged, with some chance of success. If
either one or both states has to go back to the drawing board and tone their gerrymanders down, that could move a few
more seats in the Democrats' direction.
This is not to say that all is sunshine and roses for the blue team, of course. First of all, they hold a
disproportionate number of the swingy seats. For example, of the 15 newly Democratic-leaning seats, the Party already
holds 11 of them. Those 11 will be easier to hold, but they're not candidates to flip to the blue team.
By contrast, of the nine newly Republican-leaning seats, only one is currently in the hands of the
GOP. Second, while the Democrats have had 25 retirements (and counting), depriving them of some invaluable candidates,
the Republicans have recruited very well this cycle. Third, and possibly most importantly, the current climate—in
particular, Joe Biden's poor approval ratings, and the perception that the economy is bad—is hostile to the
So, the Republicans remain the favorite to retake the House. It just won't be gerrymandering that gets them there.
Meanwhile, the short-term trends are not great for the Democrats, but favorable maps are favorable maps. So, even if
they lose the House this cycle, they will be in pretty good shape to take it back in 2024. (Z)
As long as we're talking about Congress, and specifically about Democratic retirements, there was some news on that
front on Wednesday. Rep. Bobby Hill (D-IL) announced that he was stepping down on Monday, and it took less than 48 hours
for the first hat
to be tossed
into the ring in the race to replace him. That hat belongs to Alderwoman Pat Dowell, who had been a longshot candidate
for Illinois Secretary of State, but decided that she liked the fit of IL-01 better. She will undoubtedly draw
competition, but the fact that she already had a campaign staff and fundraising apparatus in place is a pretty big
Meanwhile, in the neighboring state of Michigan, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D)
that she will run in MI-12—less than 24 hours after it was vacated by Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D). This makes sense,
because the new district contains two-thirds of the constituents from her current district (MI-13). It is likely that
Tlaib would have jumped even if Lawrence did not retire; this may have influenced Lawrence's decision to call it a
There is no risk that any of these districts will flip; IL-01 is going to be D+41, MI-12 is going to be D+44, and
MI-13 is going to be D+46. The only drama, if there is any, will be in the primaries, which is why it is wise for a
candidate to jump in as soon as practicable, and to get a head start on any possible competitors. Also, note that
Illinois and Michigan share a 150-mile maritime border on Lake Michigan, even if they share no land border. So no
e-mails on that point, please, especially since criticism makes the staff cartographer break out in hives. (Z)
By the time this is all said and done, this list is going to be very long. Here is where it stands at the moment:
Some readers suggested that the five points for boldness should be awarded even if
a person earns zero points for accuracy. We considered it, but are going to stick with
the system we've been using. First, it's way easier to be incredibly bold than to be incredibly accurate. Second,
the boldness points are meant to be extra credit. No student gets extra credit without doing the underlying work
correctly (or at least partly correctly). Third, we like it that the percentages are working out to numbers that
are plausible major league batting averages.
- P.D.K. in Blaine, MN: Trump hysteria will continue and soften with a larger role being
played by his children, Ivanka will come out as the winning Trumper (to hedge against Kamala Harris) but will eventually
lose to whoever is in the more traditional Republican lane. Trump himself will become ill and be forced to play a very
downsized role via whatever media venue is desperate enough to have him.
Comments: The underlying notion—that others will start to assume the Trump mantle—is correct, but it's
not the kids (especially not Ivanka), it's people like Ron DeSantis. So, that's in the ballpark, but it's not on the mark.
We would also say it's a moderately bold prediction. Accuracy: 2/5, Boldness: 3/5, Total: 5/10
- D.R. Kensington, MD: "No" to all three Trump children's rumored Senate campaigns, both for
their primaries, and for actually reaching the Senate. I guess that means I'm saying the Viking guy got closer to the
Senate floor than any of these three will ever get.
Comments: Absolutely correct, though we don't think that any of the three children were ever especially likely to
run. Lara Trump was a serious possibility, but you didn't include her, so boldness points are limited here.
A: 5/5, B: 1/5, T: 6/10
- S.S. in Detroit, MI: Eric and Don Jr.'s political ambitions will come to naught.
Comments: See above, though the boldness points are even less warranted here, since Ivanka didn't make
the list. A: 5/5, B: 0.5/5, T: 5.5/10
- A.D. in Stoughton, MA: Sidney Powell and Lin Wood will be stripped of their bar licenses in
Comments: This would be a pretty good prediction for 2022, but not for 2021. A: 0/5, B: 0/5,
- J.L. in Paterson, NJ: No attorney will be disbarred because of any of the election-related
litigation, despite the outraged demands of Democrats and assorted defendants.
Comments: And this was a pretty good prediction for 2021, but it wouldn't be for 2022. A: 5/5, B: 3/5,
- A.H. in Midland, GA: Donald Trump and the politicians, lawyers, and media personalities
who either egged on the attack on the Capitol Building or who participated in inflaming tensions in regards to "stopping
the steal" will not be prosecuted or held accountable in any meaningful way by the legal system. In fact, I don't think
any of the legislators will even be expelled from their seats in Congress. The Republican Party will still be in the
thrall of Donald Trump by year's end, and the attack on the Capitol will only embolden the MAGA base.
Comments: At the moment, this is pretty accurate, though it will likely go counterfeit in 2022 (see above).
And it was actually a pretty bold prediction when it was made, as there was a monthlong period when it looked like
Trump's hold on the Republican Party was shattered. A: 5/5, B: 4/5, T: 9/10
- A.H. in Brier, WA: I hope to God that I am wrong, but my prediction is that Trump's
supporters will move on to a campaign of political assassination.
Comments: Thankfully, you were indeed wrong. There were a few numbnuts who thought that way, but luckily the Secret
Service is very good at what it does. A: 0/5, B: 0/5, T: 0/10
- E.R. in Colorado Springs, CO: At the end of 2021, we'll look back at the events of January
6, and realize they will not be among even the top 5 most absurd, or deadly, instances of domestic terrorism
attributable to Trump cultists in 2021.
Comments: Thankfully, this one was wrong, too. A: 0/5, B: 0/5, T: 0/10
- R.J. in Nantucket, MA: At least 250 innocent U.S. people will be killed in domestic
terrorist events linked to support for Trump. 80% of all these deaths will happen in the 3 most lethal events.
Comments: Yet another where the predicter is surely happy to have been proven wrong. A: 0/5, B: 0/5, T: 0/10
- F.H. in St. Paul, MN: By 2022, Trumpism will be a shadow of its former self. Trump will be
deemed too incompetent to stand trial and he will live out his days yelling at the TV.
Comments: He probably does yell at the TV a lot, but we don't know that, and the rest has not come to pass. In particular,
Trumpism would appear to be alive and well. A: 0/5, B: 0/5, T: 0/10
- T.W. in San Francisco, CA: Based on the German experience with "Adolf", I predict a sharp
drop in the number of baby boys named "Donald".
Comments: The numbers are not in for 2021 yet, but the trendlines are crystal clear:
There were 1,609 Donalds born in 2000, back when it was close to being a Top 200 name. There were 444 of them born in 2020,
when the name was well outside the Top 500. Clearly, this is not all due to the Trump presidency, but he does seem to have hastened
the process. Anyhow, we're awarding full points for accuracy, while we see this as middle-of-the-road in terms of boldness.
A: 5/5, B: 3/5, T: 8/10
That looks like 41.5 points out of 110, for a Tony Gwynn-like average of .377. And the readers' running total is
82.5 out of 270, for a .305 average. That compares to .260 for us, and .341 for the pundits. (Z)
Back to the main page