Prime Time

Yesterday I went to my local supermarket and bought a bag of caramel and sea- salt popcorn, I filled a tall glass with water, opened my notebook, and sat down to watch the select committee tell me next-to-nothing new. I think it was clear from the start these hearings weren't for us—you and me; the politically astute—it was to remind and educate the dilettantes about the publicly attempted coup d'état on January 6, 2021. A well-documented and spotlighted event, even the politically naïve remember. What they might not know, is the reported vivaciousness of Donald Trump, or the much more serious coup attempt that was brewing behind the scenes. It was a worrying sign that the committee was seemingly unwilling to haul-in witnesses with subpoenas; the Justice Department still hasn't arrested Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino on contempt charges for defying theirs, and I don't hear any real hubbub from the committee about that. Ruby Ridge happened because a man refused to comply with a court order, but I'm sure there is no double standard for the powerful. Another cause for trepidation was the timing: they waited to release their findings closer to election day. Democrats have midterms on their minds, and they'll run on the same thing as last year: we're not them. That meant this highly important investigation could be marred by being a dog and pony show. I hope I'm not jumping the gun after one hearing by saying that is exactly what it was: a dog and pony show to convince skeptics of the Trumpian danger. An important cause, but not one these members could fulfill. The playbook for presenting information works like this: say what you will show, show, say what you showed. You'll notice this same pattern in a trial with opening and closing arguments. There are also the primacy and recency effects, we tend to remember the first and last things best. So a strong opening, cogent middle, and succinct closing were sine qua non. It started with Chairman Bennie Thompson talking about slavery and the civil war, interesting but I'm here to learn about last year, not the Jan. 6 of 1862. He then said Trump lost the election and showed footage of Bill Barr, Trump's Attorney General, calling Trump's election lies "bullshit." Thompson continued orating about the conspiracy to overturn a legitimate election, something I'm already convinced of, and then about honor and responsibility to the truth. No promise of proof made yet. Then, 14 minutes in, he handed over to Liz Cheney for the opening statement; making me wonder what I'd been listening to for 14 minutes. Cheney insipidly made some promises like: "you will hear that President Trump was yelling, and quote 'really angry' at advisors who told him he needed to be doing something more." Aphoristic this was not, if you didn't care before, I doubt Cheney's prolix delivery piqued your interest. Also if you are of a skeptical republican mind were your fears of partisanship placated by descriptions of the "brave officers" and "violent mob?" The committee wants to paint you a picture—it happens to be the right one, but that's still their intent—but they forgot the golden rule of storytelling: show don't tell. Instead of spoon-feeding and editorializing they should've let the violence speak for itself, show us in glorious technicolor, and let us hear from injured officers. The night's highlight was one sentence from Ivanka Trump; she seemed to concur with Barr that the election wasn't stolen. After a chocolate-box quote from Cheney about dishonor, and some patriotic verbiage about George Washington and the importance and dignity of our capitol, the paintings that hang on the walls depicting American history, and Ronald Reagan, the 35-minute opening statement was concluded. Thompson told us most of the footage we were about to see had never been publicly shown, aside from a few shots and bodycam footage, I had seen almost all of it. The New York Times released a video on their Youtube channel on July 1, 2021, it included virtually everything shown. The only difference was The Times had more details and footage... embarrassing. After a 10-minute recess we arrived at the testimony of officer Caroline Edwards, who started talking about the names she was called on, and after, January 6th. "I'd been called names before, but never had my patriotism or duty been called into question," she said. "I, who got up every day, no matter how early the hour, or how late I got in the night before, to put on my uniform and to protect America's symbol of democracy." At this point I was starting to worry officer Edwards' description of her patriotic feelings might make some people not take her seriously. Unfair as that may be. "I am the proud granddaughter of a Marine that fought in the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War. I think of my papa often in these days, how he was so young and thrown into a battle he never saw coming and answered the call at a great personal cost. How he lived the rest of his days with bullets and shrapnel in his legs, and never once complained about his sacrifice. I would like to think that he would be proud of me. Proud of his granddaughter that stood her ground that day and continued fighting even though she was wounded. Like he did many years ago. I am my grandfather's granddaughter, proud to put on a uniform and serve my country. They dared to question my honor, they dared to question my loyalty, and they dared to question my duty. I am a proud American, and I will gladly sacrifice everything to make sure that the America my grandfather defended is here for many years to come." Later, they showed how she was injured: she was pushed over by the first wave of rioters whilst holding one of those portable steel barriers; she hit her head and got knocked out cold. To her credit, once she woke up she went straight back to work fending off rioters without backup or proper riot gear. The absolute incompetence of her superiors is so impressive that it deserves its own article one day. She should've been used to paint the officer's perspective, to explain what the police went through that day. The second witness—Nick Quested—was articulate and pointed; a great witness. The only thing he could testify to, however, was mostly the mood and atmosphere of the day as he filmed the proud boys. Just as both witnesses were introduced and sworn in, a documentary-style video started playing. Once again showing an analysis of the riot that the Times already made better 11 months ago. After that was over, the witnesses gave their respective testimonies. Multiple sentences of the committee's gratitude later, we were played some footage of the proud boys. Throughout the arduous 2-hour ordeal Trump's plan to get Homeland Security to seize voting machines received lip service. The riot is of no interest here, the plot behind it is. But to find out you have to stay tuned, the promise of more details in the future was everything they had to offer. To be continued next episode, you'll finally hear about the parts that matter! As if it's a telenovela. I just hope they didn't get themselves canceled after one season.

Prime Time

Addendum

In the days following the story above, observing some public opinion and watching the second hearing, I thought my analysis could do with some fine- tuning. I think I made a miscalculation of sorts, my criticism still stands but I overestimated the American public. I realize that sounds gravely insulting, but I promise you that's not my intent. Most Americans go about their busy lives: working, taking care of their families, hanging out with their friends; none of this involves politics. It's easy to forget that most of the country isn't paying close attention. Some on social media shared that this was the first time they'd ever seen the footage of January 6th, others who had seen it before, echoed the same sentiment of shock, saying they forgot how bad it was. Factoring in how badly the reminder was needed, I can't blame the committee for revisiting the elementary basics. I can also understand why left-leaning political commentators were euphoric about the prime-time ratings. The discouraging but sobering reminder is of course that the public needs to be shown, taught, and reminded that the United States Capitol was besieged. This is not an indictment of their intellect, but the reality of the priorities of the majority of the country is that we need to spoonfeed the details of history, even if it was only 17 months ago. The second hearing was much better. They finally put some meat on the bone, focusing much more on the testimony of key players. Zoe Lofgren is a much better and more charismatic orator than Liz Cheney (not to mention a nicer politician). Her quote about the "big lie" also being "the big rip-off" was excellent and didn't come across as contrived as Cheney's vapid quote about dishonor. With 2 opening statements and 3 closings, they got on my nerves enough for me to deny them the description of conciseness, but the focus on concrete testimonial evidence was excellent. Even to trundle out the lawyer who helped George W. Bush steal the 2000 election, Benjamin Ginsberg, testifying to the frivolousness of Trump's stolen election claims... incroyable. Imagine if they had opened with this. Resigning the juicy details to a lesser watched, inferiorly advertised, second hearing in the early hours of the day is, in my opinion, quite foolish. The good news, however, is that there is more cause for optimism, and that is something I'll take with both hands.