The media allows the January 6 Committee to skate


This is how the week ends this holder of washington post:

The committee of January 6 establishes a historic confrontation

the post office story says this:

Thursday’s decision by the Jan. 6 committee to subpoena five House Republican lawmakers sets up a tense and historic showdown over Congress’s ability to force its members to participate in one of its own investigations, the outcome of which could have major ramifications. political and legal.

… Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said the subpoenas were necessary because “several of our colleagues have information relevant to our investigation into the Jan. 6 attack and the events leading up to it.”

Do you notice something curious here? Or should I say curiously missing?

That would be serious media coverage of the January 6 Committee members themselves, what they did or did not do on January 6 and in the lead up to that day, not to mention their later role in setting up the show trial in the style of Stalin. committee itself.

Note that the Committee has already issued subpoenas to AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile and any other companies that may have the text messages, emails and phone records of the Trump family and staff members, conservative members of the media (Think: Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.) In fact, unsurprisingly, the Committee has leaked the private correspondence of several of these people to, but of course, the media.

But what about the media investigating the Committee itself? Where are they? Where are the media demands to make public the text messages, emails and phone records of all nine Committee members: 7 Democrats plus Republican Never Trumpers Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger? Where are the demands for all the same communications from Committee staff members?

In fact, one member of the committee is California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren and another Maryland Democrat, Jamie Raskin. Why does it matter? Lofgren and Raskin are, respectively, the chairman and the second-ranking Democrat on the House Management Committee. Why does it matter? here is this description of the responsibilities of that Committee as listed on the Management Committee website:

Another major concern since the 2001 terrorist attacks and anthrax attacks on Capitol Hill has been to improve security on the House side of the complex while maintaining a high level of accessibility for citizens. In its role as overseer of House security, the committee has worked closely with the Capitol Police. One of the committee’s first challenges was coordinating resources to secure the campus, facilitate evacuations when necessary, and suggest alternate locations for Congress to meet. In addition to providing up-to-date communications equipment to members and staff, the committee also provided Congressional offices with a campus-wide network for emergency broadcast announcement.

In other words, Lofgren and Raskin had a direct role in keeping the Capitol safe on January 6. And the questioning and investigation of the media about what they did, or did not do, the two in the days before and after the month of January. 6 attacks?

As Rush Limbaugh said: Zip, zero, nothing.

there in The Wall Street Journal, columnist Kimberly Strassel has just written about what is, on the surface, a totally different topic than the January 6 Committee. But writing about the machinations of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, she points to the game at work with now-notorious Fusion GPS consultancy and British spy Christopher Steele and their now equally infamous “Dossier Steele”. She writes:

Fusion GPS, which hired Steele, has turned toxic in Washington. The Durham prosecutions show how the opposition research firm operates, not by producing actual investigations, but by buying sordid claims from law enforcement and then intimidating journalists into covering the “investigations” that Fusion inspires.

Did you catch that? Fusion took Steele’s “sordid” “investigation” and sold it to law enforcement and “then intimidate journalists into covering the ‘investigations’ that Fusion inspires.”

Which in turn raises the obvious question of the January 6th Committee and both its purchase of private correspondence leaked to the media, as well as the media’s refusal to investigate the Committee itself.

In a follow-up article on the Committee, the post office top this:

Historical citations from the January 6 panel to House GOPers, and what follows

The story says this:

Broadly speaking, there are three legal options on the table and a fourth administrative option for the House if members resist the subpoenas, as expected:

1. Refer members who challenge subpoenas to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

2. Go to civil court to complete testimony.

3. Have the sergeant-at-arms arrest and detain the member.

4. Sanction the member with fines or stripping him of the functions of the committee.

So where are the stories about whether the subpoenas should be served, as noted, to the members and staff of the January 6th Committee?

Where are the stories about how Committee members and staff would use those “three legal options…and a fourth administrative option” to resist the subpoenas served to them?

The second post office The story focuses on the usefulness of the fourth option to “Punish the member with fines or by stripping him of committee assignments.”

If, when the GOP takes control and members of the January 6th Committee resist subpoenas, as McCarthy and the four GOP appointees are now resisting, the post office quote a piece in Lawfare by University of Chicago law professor Albert W. Alschuler, who says of option four:

Better still would be daily fines, which could increase for each day or week of non-compliance. A judge doubts that reviving the use of the inherent power of Congress to sanction contempt remains a realistic option. He is concerned that Congress risks a “physical combat with the Executive Branch” by “dispatch[ing] the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest and imprison an official of the Executive Power.” But ordering a competitor to pay a fine to the sergeant-at-arms for each day of noncompliance is unlikely to lead to a shootout.

A House resolution imposing this fine could authorize the sergeant to use all available civil processes to collect it. The contempor could challenge the legality of the congressional action by presenting a precautionary measure against this official. He could also take the riskier route of waiting to present his defenses until the House seeks recovery of his accumulated fines in a civil suit. If the competitor refused to pay after being ordered by a court to do so, the Chamber could use the same collection procedures used by other judgment creditors, for example, garnishing the competitor’s wages. No guns, no handcuffs, no hotel rooms needed.

That is, if (when?) outraged Committee members resist the goose-sauce, goose-sauce deal presented to them if the GOP regains control of the House, they could be fined all the way. the cows come home

Will the media focus on the Committee’s conduct when that happens? With 24/7 Trump-Russia collusion-style coverage?

Do not wait up.

But you can be sure that when the January 6 Committee goes public with live hearings in June, as they are currently scheduled, the media will be there to record every last word, grimace and throat clearing. All of which will be choreographed to fit into the broader Democratic plan to stave off the November red wave that so many, including Democrats, believe is coming.

The problem for the media in all this?

The American people, thanks in no small part to Donald Trump’s repeated calls for the “fake news media,” are in on the game.

There is one thing the Post’s second article got right about exactly what the January 6th Committee can expect if the Red Wave floods the DC Swamp. He told the Post of the mindset of House Republicans: “The turn will be fair game.”


The question is: How will that be covered?

My guess: not very well.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here