Republicans shocked to find that refusing to be on Jan. 6 committee means not being on committee

On Wednesday, multiple Republicans, including Donald Trump, expressed their dissatisfaction with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy over how he has handled the House select committee on Jan. 6. On Thursday, as the committee prepares to air its next hearing, the “blame McCarthy” message seems to just keep expanding. One thing is absolutely clear: Republicans can see that the series of public hearings are devastatingly effective.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi informed McCarthy that she would not seat either Rep. Jim Jordan or Rep. Jim Banks on the committee because both were likely to be sought as witnesses because of their involvement in the Jan. 6 conspiracy, McCarthy made an immediate response. Rather than appoint replacements, McCarthy reacted by withdrawing his three other nominees to the committee and refusing to cooperate. The intention from McCarthy was to create the impression that the select committee was, as Trump repeatedly claims, “a partisan witch hunt.” However, McCarthy could not stop Republican Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger from participating.

In spite of the continuing cries on the right that the committee is “partisan” and “slanted,” it’s obvious Republicans can see the effect the public hearings are having. Day by day, the committee has reminded the public of the violence committed on Jan. 6. It has shown how white supremacist militias were involved in planning and promoting that violence. In the most recent hearings, the committee has begun the process of unfolding the conspiracy, led by Trump, that hoped to use Jan. 6 as a means of subverting a national election.

The effectiveness of those hearings can be directly measured in the scorn now being heaped on McCarthy.

Campaign Action

It’s not as if total noncooperation was an idea original to McCarthy. Refusal to cooperate and forcing House committees to go to court to get the most trivial documents that are usually handed over as a matter of course was standard operating procedure during the Trump White House. That noncooperation has continued as Trump has made it clear he doesn’t want any of his insiders testifying before the select committee on Jan. 6.

However, as The New York Times now reports, pro-Trump Republicans have discovered that since McCarthy cut them out off the committee, they have, shockingly, been cut out of the committee. That is, they haven’t been privy to the inner workings of the investigation or had any clarity on how the committee staff was building the case against Trump and his supporters. That’s left them open to surprises in terms of documents and testimony turned up in the investigation.

The absence of Trump-defenders on the committee has become exceedingly obvious during the public hearings, as the testimony of witnesses has not been hijacked or sidetracked as it frequently was during the House impeachment hearings. Witnesses to Jan. 6 violence have not been asked to give their opinion on Hunter Biden’s laptop, to discuss how President Joe Biden is responsible for high gas prices, or about anything related to Hillary Clinton. And Republicans are suddenly regretting that.

As The Washington Post notes, McCarthy is still instructing Republicans to simply ignore the hearings until they go away. Except a few Republicans seemed to have removed their heads from holes long enough to note that people are watching these hearings and seeing things that are not so good for Republicans. And especially not good for Trump.

That’s why Trump is said to be at “the point of about to scream at the TV” and why he has been going on right-wing media to complain that McCarthy made “a very, very foolish decision.” Not only does this information highlight the growing rift between Trump and McCarthy, it also provides the satisfying knowledge that Trump is sitting down at Mar-a-Lago, watching the hearings and fuming.

As he watches, Trump is complaining that there is no one to defend him. Blame for that lack is “falling squarely on McCarthy’s shoulders.” 

Elsewhere in the Post, a new Quinnipiac poll shows that 26% of Americas say they are watching the hearings very closely, while 32% say they are watching somewhat closely. In that poll, 64% of Americans also say they believe the Jan. 6 attack was planned, rather than spontaneous. 

As Politico notes, Republicans are now finding themselves in an uncomfortable schism between Trump, who multiple sources indicated intends to run again in 2024, and McCarthy, who hopes to replace Pelosi as House speaker after the fall midterms. The hearings are already hurting them both, but the growing rancor against McCarthy is making things worse.

Trump has refused to endorse McCarthy for the speaker position. And Republicans like Jim Jordan, who is regarded as an ally of McCarthy but a disciple of Trump, is finding there is no safe ground in this fight. Trump is reportedly “leaving room to turn on McCarthy if he chooses.” 

Considering the public statements he’s already making, the question should be if Trump chooses to turn on McCarthy more

However, one thing is certain: If Republicans didn’t see these committee hearings as effective, McCarthy wouldn’t be getting criticism. If they thought the hearings were really being viewed as partisan, or that Americans weren’t paying attention, McCarthy would be collecting praise.

And it’s not as if there haven’t been plenty of Republicans in the committee hearings. They’ve been in there every day, testifying to how Donald Trump pressured them, threatened them, and terrorized them in an effort to overturn a federal election.

Right-wing fraudsters attorney says they want Alan Dershowitz to testify at robocall trial

American scumbags Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman have been charged with at least four felony counts connected to voter-suppressing, misinforming robocalls in Michigan that targeted “urban” areas in the weeks preceding this election. No, this isn’t connected to the time Wohl and Burkman attempted to trump up fake sexual assault charges against Dr. Anthony Fauci. No, this isn’t the time Wohl and Burkman attempted to create fake sexual intrigue allegations against Sen. Elizabeth Warren. 

On Monday, Burkman and Wohl were back in virtual court where Burkman’s lawyers Scott Grabel and William Amadeo of Grabel & Associates made this amazing revelation: he has been “consulting with someone.” In fact, he has been consulting with some who “is working with the president right now on this election fraud situation.” It turns out that this person he is consulting with and who he hopes will be an expert witness on constitutional law, “teaches at Harvard Law School...”

In this clip below, Burkman’s attorney Scott Grabel claims he has “spoken” to Alan Dershowitz by “email” and is not sure whether or not he will be able to be “retained,” but is hoping to have a place for him to speak on, once again, “constitutional law.” This is the same Alan Dershowitz whose shining catastrophic moment, the one that will likely be remembered in law history for centuries to come, was the singularly most convoluted, intellectually dishonest, and vapid attempt at arguing that Donald Trump couldn’t be impeached due to an abuse of power, while then arguing he didn’t say he said that, but that if he had said it it would be true, but it isn’t, so don’t say he said that. 

Daily Dot’s Zachary Petrizzo reported that Michigan Attorney General lawyer Richard Cunningham strongly opposed the motion to have a constitutional witness, before the bizarre Dershowitz revelation, because “An attorney’s role is to argue the law, it is not to testify as to what the law is.”

Burkman’s lawyer is consulting with famously unscrupulous, self-aggrandizing, there is no law unless I say it’s a law, Alan Dershowitz. This is about a series of robocalls, received in various states, targeting predominantly Black and brown communities across the country, that attempted to scare potential voters away from early voting, by lying about how early voter rolls would be used to imprison people based on outstanding debts or warrants.

Law & Crime reports that Dershowitz has told them that he is “not involved in that case,” referring to Burkman’s robocall fraud. Dershowitz also says that he is not involved at all with Trump election lawsuits. Burkman’s attorney, Grabel told Law & Order that “If Mr. Dershowitz isn’t working on ‘election issues’ I stand corrected.”

Real scumbag shit. Makes sense that Dershowitz is involved—even tangentially. George Bernard Shaw once wrote that one should “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.” In this case, everyone involved might like it. No bad press and all of that. Only the best people.

Lawyer shuts down Fox News’ #Obamagate talking points in 60 seconds, leaving host speechless

The Trump administration—in hopes of both deflecting focus from their catastrophic handling of our country’s public health and economic well-being while creating some kind of faux scandal placing blame on former President Obama that they can connect to Democratic candidate Joe Biden—have begun something they are branding “Obamagate.” The basic premise is that then-President Barack Obama illegally created an FBI witch hunt to illegally wiretap and entrap Trump’s criminal national security adviser, Michael Flynn, in a crime. 

Lawyer Bradley Moss was brought on to discuss the legal ramifications of a possible Obamagate. Asking what Mr. Moss thought of all the “transcripts, the notes we found the week before. Texts all kinds of things that now are raising a lot of questions from people about the Flynn prosecution and the Russia investigation.” Arming himself with every Trump law team argument over the past three years, Moss launched into a 60 second shutdown of every stupid conservative talking point on Obamagate.

BRADLEY MOSS: Yeah, I'm sitting here trying to figure out what exactly constitutional deprivation was there? What is the crime that people think, you know, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are going to be  prosecuted under? To be clear—and this is using the words of President Trump and his lawyers for the last three years—any sitting president can get any classified information they want. According to Donald Trump, they can launch any investigation they want. They can tell the FBI to pursue only particular individuals. This is not me saying it. This is what Donald Trump's been saying for three years.

This was their argument during the Mueller probe. This was their argument during the impeachment investigation. That the president has this kind of authority. So what did we find out? That Barack Obama was aware about intelligence intercepts on the Russian ambassador when he was talking with General Flynn? That there had just been an attack on our election a couple months earlier? We were still dealing with the fallout of Russian election interference in 2016. There was a concern about a counterintelligence prom with Michael Flynn, and they had a discussion.

I'm shocked. I can't believe they had that conversation. What is the crime?

You know who was really shocked? Fox News, who quickly did what they do best: throw to a pillow commercial.

Host: Well, ah, we’re gonna have to leave it there.

Enjoy!