Why I didn’t watch the Jan. 6 hearings

I don’t think the Jan. 6 investigations revealed anything new.  They reached a pre-determined conclusion on an issue most Americans had already made up their minds about, and few Americans care about.

The investigations would have had merit if they can explored why it was the police presence in Washington, D.C., and Capitol Hill specifically, was too small to deal with the mobs.  And why videos showed some Capitol police welcoming the Trump protesters into the Capitol building.  There are innocent explanations for both things, but I would like to know more.

There also would have been merit on hearings on whether legislation is necessary to protect the integrity of the presidential election process at the state level.  Some Republican states are considering legislation to give state legislatures the power to set aside the popular vote and make their own choice of Presidential Electors, or otherwise tampering with the voting process in presidential elections.   This is a real threat to the integrity of the election progress.

There was no chance that Vice President Pence could have changed the outcome of the election.  If Pence had refused to certify the electors, there would have been an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court calling on him to do his Constitutional duty.  If he refused to comply, there would have been some sort of work-around.  If neither of these things happened, the offices of President and Vice-President would have fallen vacant on Jan. 20 and, in accord with the Constitution, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, would have become chief executive of the United States.

The whole national military-police-governmental-business establishment was opposed to Trump overturning the election.  If Sanders had been the Democratic nominee, the establishment might have allowed the election to be overturned, but he wasn’t.

Tags: , ,

5 Responses to “Why I didn’t watch the Jan. 6 hearings”

  1. davidgmarkham Says:

    The public hearings are not over. There have only been two out of six. Maybe your questions will be addressed in the future hearings.

    Like

  2. Mark Says:

    About the “threat to the election process”, the US Constitution says in part
    https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/clause-2/
    each state shall appoint in a manner the legislature shall direct….

    So it is up to the state legislature to appoint the electors. That they are all doing it by vote is their choice and in alignment with laws & court rulings. I will note there are some federal laws & rulings by the Supreme Court to avoid fraud plus the 14th amendment has some language about voting as well. (links in this explains more fully)

    I’m pretty sure any such change would be subject to more legal challenges since there seems to be some inconsistency in the constitution & amendments.

    I will also note this summary by the House
    https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Electoral-College/
    notes that Congress has disputed electors in the past. Scroll to the bottom for the election in 1877 where Tilden was NOT elected and Hayes was because of a dispute. I believe that is more a function of the House and Senate – not the Vice President.

    Like

  3. Anonymous Says:

    Phil, I am sure that you recall that electors were originally chosen by state legislatures

    Like

  4. Fred (Au Natural) Says:

    I stopped watching the hearings because the first couple left me profoundly depressed.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: