Connect with us

Politics

Exclusive: Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Aftermath of the first Jan. 6 committee prime-time hearing

Published

on

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Aftermath of the first Jan. 6 committee prime-time hearing

#Abbreviated #Pundit #Roundup #Aftermath #Jan #committee #primetime #hearing

x

Jennifer Rubin/WaPo:

What we learned from the Jan. 6 committee’s powerful case against Trump

The seriousness of the insurrection

Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) in his opening remarks took time to make a compelling contrast of Trump to Abraham Lincoln, who in the middle of the Civil War was willing to turn over the reins of power if he lost reelection. As Thompson explained, the oath that officeholders must take — to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” — was a response to the Civil War.

Meanwhile, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) quoted from the opinion of a federal judge warning that if the coup plotters were not investigated and held responsible, an attack on U.S. democracy would happen again. The message was profound and clear: We came frightfully close to losing our democracy — and will again unless we hold Trump accountable.

Politico magazine:

‘Comes Across as a Cult Guy’: The Pennsylvania Candidate Freaking Out Both the Left and the Right

Doug Mastriano’s come-from-nowhere popularity is fusing religion and politics in a new way. He’s either Democrats’ dream opponent, or the establishment’s worst nightmare.

Mastriano represents a growing style of politics we don’t have a common name for yet: Journalists in Pennsylvania and elsewhere have called it “Christian nationalism,” a worldview shaped by the fusion of Christian messaging and American identity, though Mastriano himself has dismissed that label. He considers himself, instead, a torchbearer of “restoring your freedom.”

Advertisement

x

Broadcasting+Cable:

Most, Not All, Fox Stations To Air Capitol Insurrection Congressional Hearing

Sinclair’s Fox affiliates sticking with scheduled primetime programming June 9

The “vast majority” of Nexstar Media Group affiliates are expected to air “network coverage of the Congressional hearings on evenings when they are televised,” according to a spokesperson. Nexstar owns, operates or provides services to 200 stations nationwide.

All of Fox’s owned stations will air the hearing coverage live except WNYW New York, which will stream it.

That’s different than Fox News aka cable, but the affiliate audience is larger than the cable audience.

The News&Observer:

Former chief justice who helped Trump on election challenges named NC law school dean

“Chief Justice Mark Martin has led a distinguished judicial career in North Carolina, and he’s demonstrated tremendous results as a law school dean,” university President Nido Qubein said in a news release. “We welcome him to HPU and look forward to his extraordinary partnership as he champions HPU’s newest professional program.” Martin made a name for himself in North Carolina as the youngest person to ever be elected to the state’s Court of Appeals and the youngest to serve on the state’s Supreme Court. In 2014, Gov. Pat McCrory appointed him to serve as chief justice to fill a vacancy left by the retirement of Sarah Parker. Martin garnered national attention in 2021 when the New York Times reported former President Donald Trump consulted with Martin about overturning the election of President Joe Biden.

x

The Hollywood Reporter:

Critic’s Notebook: The Jan. 6 Committee Hearings Are Must-See TV

Compelling evidence, dramatic testimony and harrowing footage permeated the opening night of what has the potential to be the essential TV event of the summer.

Television viewers looking for tension, drama and urgent historical, political and moral relevance now have something to move to the top of their must-watch list. The first “episode” of the Jan. 6 Committee hearings delivered a chilling account of one of the darkest days in American history, complete with harrowing film footage and powerful testimonials. It remains to be seen whether what’s to follow in the coming weeks will do anything to move the needle among a citizenry that seems to have settled into their respective stances. But judging from the opening installment, there will be plenty of powerful material for those with open minds to digest.

x

Jamelle Bouie/NY Times:

Jan. 6 Was a ‘War Scene,’ and Trump Was the Director

If all of this is already in the public record — if all of it is already part of our public knowledge — why bother with hearings?

The right answer, I think, is spectacle.

Most political theater is tedious and partisan. Cheap meat for a hungry base. But there are times when these theatrics can serve a real purpose for the public at large.

In an article in the Fordham Law Review, Josh Chafetz — a law professor at Georgetown — makes a novel distinction between traditional congressional oversight and what he terms congressional “overspeech.”

Oversight is (or at least is supposed to be) about good-faith fact-finding for the sake of public accountability — a central part of Congress’s role as it has developed over time. In this view, Chafetz writes, oversight hearings should be “primarily receptive in nature,” aimed at “drawing out new facts or at least new implications of old facts.”

Advertisement

x

Eamon Javers/Twitter:

There were several tactical and presentation decisions that made last night’s Jan. 6th Committee hearings so effective:

1. They dispensed with the dumb “every member gets 5 minutes” rule. Congressional committees cling to the format, and it makes many hearings incoherent. 

2. It was bipartisan. Yes, Rep. Liz Cheney is on the outs with her fellow Republicans for her role here. But she is a leader and from one of the most prominent Republican families. The hearing showed Democrats and Republicans working together for a common cause. 

3. They let the staff take a lead in questioning. You even got to see the staff engage witnesses. Most committee members want to hog the spotlight for themselves, ignoring the fact that not all congresspersons are actually good at this. And some are really bad at it. 

4. Seamless integration of audio and video. Hearings barely ever do this. 

5. They broke news. We heard, for the first time, eyewitness accounts of what Trump was doing and saying during the insurrection and saw raw, searing, previously unreleased video of the attack. 

6. They teased ahead to more news. The committee said members of Congress sought legal pardons from President Trump for their roles in the insurrection. Who were they? Committee indicated we will learn their names in hearings to come. 

x


Politics

Exclusive: The Washington Post Runs Article That Petitions Congress To Block Trump From Running in 2024 – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

The Washington Post Runs Article That Petitions Congress To Block Trump From Running in 2024

#Washington #Post #Runs #Article #Petitions #Congress #Block #Trump #Running

On Thursday, The Washington Post published an op-ed entitled, “There is a better option to keep Trump out of office than prosecution,” petitioning Congress to block former President Donald J. Trump from re-election in 2024.

The article was written by NBC News analyst Edward B. Foley, who argued that Congress should weaponize Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against Trump to prevent him from running again. 

“If the goal of prosecuting former President Donald Trump is to protect American democracy from a Trump comeback in 2024, there is a better way to go about it than filing criminal charges,” Foley wrote. 

“Instead, Congress should exercise its constitutional authority to prohibit Trump from seeking the presidency again,” he continued. 

Section 3 of the 14th amendment explicitly authorizes Congress and the DOJ to ban people who have “engaged in insurrection” from running for office. Something Foley repeatedly called on Congress to exercise. 

TRENDING: BREAKING: SUPREME COURT REVERSES ROE v. WADE – ABORTION RETURNED TO THE STATES

Foley said, “Section 3 of the 14th Amendment sets out the procedure. It provides that ‘no person’ shall hold federal office who, ‘having previously taken an oath’ as a federal officer ‘to support the Constitution of the United States,’ has ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.’”

Foley noted that utilizing the 14th Amendment “would avoid all the extra burdens of a criminal trial, including proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Foley believes that the events of January 6 were a criminal act led by the former President but appeared to suggest pursuing a criminal conviction would be difficult.

Advertisement

“Moreover, safeguarding the 2024 election from the kind of subversion that Trump attempted in 2020 does not require putting him in prison for his past criminality. Instead, what is necessary is to disable him from being a candidate again,” he argued. 

Foley went on to say that if Trump is not blocked from candidacy in the 2024 election, “the Republic is truly in trouble.” 

The continued effort to characterize January 6 as one of the worst days in American history is a sham campaign to distract from the events that have indeed hurt the nation. 

Attorney Jeffrey Scott Shapiro argues that January 6 was not an insurrection. He pointed out the creatively edited evidence used by the shame January 6 committee to paint Trump as a villain. 

In one set of footage played in the public hearings, Trump told the protesters, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” However, the January 6 Committee cut out the “peacefully and patriotically” line in the video of Trump’s speech.

RELATED: VIDEO: Bill Maher Slams The Washington Post, Calling Their Newsrooms An ‘Unlicensed Daycare Center’

New York Post columnist Miranda Devine noted that “The 2020 BLM riots injured or blinded more than 2,000 police officers, resulted in the deaths of more than two dozen people and property damage worth more than $1 billion, the most expensive in insurance history.” 

Devine said, “As RealClearInvestigations has found, the 2020 BLM riots resulted in ’15 times more injured police officers, 30 times as many arrests, and estimated damages in dollar terms up to 1,300 times more costly than those of the Capitol riot.’”


Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: House GOP Already Mulling National Abortion Ban – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Compelling Television

#House #GOP #Mulling #National #Abortion #Ban

“Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks, coming just hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade,” CNN reports.

“The legislation appears unlikely to advance in the Senate in the near future — due in part to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Still, the early discussions represent the excitement energizing opponents of abortion rights, eager to capitalize on Friday’s victory.”

LoadingSave to Favorites

Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: New Op-Ed: "On abortion, justices demonstrate courage under fire" – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

No Pseudonymity in Challenge to Federal Vaccination Mandate

#OpEd #quotOn #abortion #justices #demonstrate #courage #firequot

Yesterday, the Deseret News invited me to write an op-ed on Dobbs. I thought I would have some time to think about it, but the Court moved quicker than I expected.

My Op-Ed is titled, “On abortion, justices demonstrate courage under fire.” This piece builds on my essay “Judicial Courage” in the Texas Review of Law & Politics.

Here is the introduction:

In 1973, Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to abortion. Two decades later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court refused to reverse that controversial decision, writing that “to overrule (Roe) under fire … would subvert the Court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question.”

Today, Roe was overruled in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. And in doing so, the majority demonstrated real courage “under fire.” Five justices were willing to take this bold and correct legal step in the face of never-ending personal attacks, efforts to pack the court, fallout from the leaked draft opinion, protests outside their homes and even an assassination attempt.

Dobbs, which is a triumph for originalism and sound constitutional law, also signals that the court is infused with judicial fortitude. This virtue, more than any particular method of deciding cases, guarantees that the court will steadfastly safeguard the rule of law.

And the conclusion:

Two years ago, I dubbed the final month of the Supreme Court’s term as “Blue June.” In case after case, the court’s purported conservative majority went to the left. Chief Justice John Roberts, the swing vote, found creative ways to strike balances that did not really resolve contentious issues, but avoided any obvious conservative victory. He hewed closely to a jurisprudence of public relations.

Two years later, we are in a very different time — call it “Red June.” Today, the court overruled Roe v. Wade; yesterday the court held that New York’s restrictions on concealed carry were unconstitutional. These two decisions, separated by 24 hours, were handed down in the face of immense pressure from every facet of our society. Yet the justices did not falter. They are infused with judicial courage. And if they stick to their guns, come what may, the rule of law will be steadfastly safeguarded.

I will have much more to say about Red June, or perhaps Red Flag June in due course.

You should also check out Joel Alicea’s piece in City Journal, titled “An Originalist Victory.”

Advertisement

To acknowledge this achievement is to acknowledge the constitutional theory around which the coalition that brought it about rallied for a half-century: originalism. It was originalism that the pro-life movement adopted after Roe and supported through the confirmation defeat of Robert Bork; the attempted defeats of Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh; and the setback of Casey. The goal of overruling Roe and Casey bound the conservative political movement to the conservative legal movement, and originalism was their common constitutional theory. Dobbs thus had the potential—as I argued in an earlier essay—to exacerbate the tensions over originalism within the conservative legal movement. It would be viewed as the acid test of originalism’s ability to translate theory into practice, and there would be no avoiding the stakes for the conservative legal movement in the case: “complete victory or crisis-inducing defeat,” as I put it. We now know that it was a complete victory, and it was, in large part, originalism’s victory.

I count Joel, Sherif Girgis, and a few others, as leaders in the conservative legal movement who helped advance the debate in Dobbs.

Continue Reading

Exclusive

Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.