While Democrats and a few Republicans search for accountability for the January 6 insurrection, Trump loyalists are thinking ahead, trying to get more control over ballots in the coming elections.
The dramatic revelations on Monday — which came at a special House January 6 committee hearing called to recommend Meadows be held in contempt of Congress — should end the gaslighting of America by supporters of former President Donald Trump who argue the insurrection was no big whoop. It was. And even Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Trump Jr. knew it. Get the latest on the full House vote Tuesday to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress. Our understanding of January 6 has changed. That Trump ignored even these allies and let the riot unfold should be damning. That his enablers at Fox have decided to forget the riot happened is even worse. « To know the right thing — and to even call on Trump, in the moment, to do the right thing — and then spend the next 11 months pretending publicly like you didn’t? Gross, » writes CNN’s Chris Cillizza. What happens next? There will be more revelations that come from this committee. It’s looking into the seemingly coordinated effort to throw out electoral votes, including by members of Congress. It’s charting potential coordination between rally organizers and the White House. These are facts the public needs to know. But there’s also the nagging reality that whatever the committee produces may not lead to any real accountability other than public shame. For Trump, who is shameless and already twice survived impeachment, that’s perhaps not such a high price. But there may be few options to do more than correct the record. Could Trump be charged with a crime? Rep. Liz Cheney, the Wyoming Republican who serves as vice chair of the January 6 committee, said Monday the panel needs to talk to Meadows in part to answer a key question about Trump. « Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’ official proceedings to count electoral votes? » she asked. That made CNN legal analyst Elie Honig’s « prosecutorial ears perk up. » « It almost seemed like she was reading right out of the statute book, » Honig said Tuesday on CNN’s « New Day. » Cheney’s language was very similar to the law of the land, which includes those terms: « corruptly… obstruct, or impede… proper administration of the law.
