What We Are Missing in the Hearings
I am disappointed in the reporting on these Hearings and the Hearings themselves. This is the second time people are applauding statements from the January 6th Committee Hearing. In this Hearing we experienced former 4th COA Judge Luttig slowly, carefully, and legally make a statement on conversations he had concerning Pence and what trump was trying to get Pence to do.
After his conversation with a Pence attorney, Judge Luttig tweeted a message saying Pence did not have the power to reject electors. No bells went off in his head as to why the question or why trump was demanding. This is another example of responsible people doing nothing.
Everyone knew trump is a volatile person prone to excesses, having his own way, and his tantrums. No warnings went out.
I am sorry Prof. and my fellow commenters. This is what I read as reported by CNN Politics.
“On January 5, 2021 – after Pence’s lawyer, Richard Cullen, called Luttig asking for help – Luttig tweeted a statement explaining that the Constitution gave Pence no powers to reject electors and overturn the election, as Trump was demanding. Pence cited the statement in his letter on January 6 explaining why he would defy Trump and certify the election.”
I do not “tweet.” I do little on Facebook or the other communication devices out there. I still buy books. When I travel long distance, I might reread Kennedy’s “Rise and Fall of the Great Powers” or tackle something new such as “Theory of Justice.” I am somewhat old fashion in such matters. In other matters, I am very accepting.
I was around for the Nixon Hearing. This one statement by Howard Baker keeps resonating in my head:
“What did the “president” know, and when did he know it?”
Howard Baker: the real story of his famous Watergate question – CSMonitor.com
Strike the word president and insert Luttig, Barr, Jacobs, Cullen, Pence, etc. into this question.
How many people died in this failed attempt? How many were suffering injuries physically and mentally? The bombs planted never went off and Harris escaped injury or death.
No question has been asked if the person there for questioning knew of a potential issue on January 6. For that matter, no one reacted to the meeting trump had with the insurrectionists earlier. Jordan knew as did other of the uppers.
The judge did not know enough to warn of this activity or questioning??? Luttig was measuring his words to protect himself from potentially being indictment. As a judge, one could expect the question (Bakers) to have arisen in his head during a Hearing.
Sorry, I am still disappointed,
run
pretty much i am too. but politics is such a convoluted game i never expect to know the truth. watching Luttig was painful even before he spoke. i don’t know if i am watching a nerological problem or a “personality” problem. sorry if i seem to be stuck on that theme for the day.
coberly;
He admitted to speaking slowly;
“The words Luttig wants to be remembered”
That’s okay too. I of all people should be sympathetic. I don’t mock, but it was painful to watch. One word I don’t think he got right was his insistence that the twelfth amedment was “pristine.” I am leery of people who think anything is “perfectly clear.”
Yeah. I was torn between wondering if he had something like a recent stroke, or if he was acting out some performance theater. Or if he was just being way ,way too careful with what he was saying.
It was painful to watch.
Having seen a friend’s husband with Parkinson’s, I wondered if that might have been the problem. It never seemed likely to me that a jurist of such stature would absolutely have to weigh every word. Would it be likely he would utter rash babble, under oath, in a televised hearing before 20 million people? The idea is silly.
Yes, it was difficult to watch. But I scolded my 21st century attention span and made her sit and behave. It could have been worse. It could have been a council of Ents.
And of course, who can forget…
https://youtu.be/B2g_TCYuIAM
Noni:
I am thinking the same. Ents? Had to look it up to refresh my memory which is surprising cluttered at times. Like I need a new solid state hard drive with more Ram. Someone could say something funny or a fact which would dawn on me moments later and I would chuckle. I would be asked why the laughing . . . oh, it just dawned on me. Numbers are more my life which made me a great supply chain manager.
I was in a meeting with a bunch of company people for a presentation. VP presenting a list of 12 numbers. He was getting ready to tell the total when I told him what the total was. Hesitated and just kind of looked at me. I get bored and just want to know what you wish and then let me do it. I already know if I can or can not.
Loved, liked, and despised for such.
I think the judge has issues.
cont.
I think I understand why “the law” needs to be followed as carefully as possible, and only changed by vote of Congress, or Constitutional amendment when necessary. But that turns out to be impractical and not necessary as we have seen. And only the delusional or dishonest believe they can know “the intent of the Framers” or should follow it slavishly when moderately generous interpretation will preserve the intent of the country as a whole, from the soldiers who fought in the Revolution, to the people who accepted the Constituion as a guarantee of the freedoms and rights they had “from god” (for lack of a better word)..to the people who have obeyed the law and worked within the legal structures expecting it (the law as interpreted) to provide the protections they needed from each other and from “the law” itself.
Tradition, recent and ancient, and the law, provide guides, even quite strict guides to what the law “should be,” not some Jurist or King who imagines some tortured reasoning justifies him placing some doubtful point of law above common sense humanity.
Which, as they will point out, is always doubtful and in dispute.
Justice Potter Stewart once said of pornography “I know it when I see it”
Is there no one who can say of an attempt to subvert the Constitution “I know it when I see it”?
Bingo …
I have been of the opinion that those on the inside, consulted with or just hearing stuff that are testifying, talking etc since were not so much for a violent subversion of the election but are still supporting the Carl Rove idea of a long term if not permanent Republican rule (not governance).
These people do not accept democracy. They accept a selfish bastardized version. If they didn’t, they would not be conservative.
I’m trying to conserve a world for my great-grandson to grow up in.
My notion of how to go about it ain’t exactly “liberal” …