I’ve been wondering who the House select committee investigating the January 6 riot sees as its primary audience. On Thursday night, it was pretty clear: Attorney General Merrick Garland. I am sure the committee members would love to change public opinion (which hardened fairly quickly in the weeks after the attack on the Capitol) and to convince Republicans that former President Donald Trump cannot be trusted again with the presidency.

But Thursday’s hearing felt like a desperate plea to the Department of Justice to indict Trump and his co-conspirators for what was repeatedly called an “illegal” attempt to circumvent the results of the 2020 election. Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who co-chaired the committee, delivered a long presentation that felt like the opening arguments of a criminal trial. The phrase “you will hear…” was used multiple times, just the way a prosecutor would lay out an opening argument to a jury before proceeding with evidence and witness testimony.

The initial construction of the hearing may have hampered its effectiveness. Committee chairman Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson’s long speech (complete with his own personal narrative and historical anecdotes) had virtually nothing to do with the matter at hand and risked losing people who might have tuned in for something other than the usual boring congressional pablum. Thompson’s comments about the “peaceful transfer of power” rang a little hollow given that he personally voted in favor of objecting to the results in Ohio during the counting of former President George W. Bush’s electoral college votes in 2005.Thompson was always a strange choice to lead this committee, given his history of trying to interrupt a previous president’s electoral college certification.

The first hearing of the January 6 select committee lived up to the ample hype surrounding it, providing a cogent case — with compelling new details — for Donald Trump’s culpability in the violent effort to overturn the 2020 election.

The thesis of the committee’s case — that “January 6 was the culmination of an attempted coup” — was laid out by Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) at the very beginning of the hearing. It was bolstered with a somber presentation carried live across broadcast and most cable networks that previewed the seven additional hearings the committee will hold in the coming weeks.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, a committee staffer said ​​the goal was to present “new details showing that violence was a result of a coordinated, multi-step effort to overturn the 2020 election and stop the transfer of power and that Donald Trump was at the center of that effort.” Despite questions about whether the committee could deliver any new information — there’s been extensive reporting, not to mention an entire impeachment trial on this already — it did.

I’ve been wondering who the House select committee investigating the January 6 riot sees as its primary audience. On Thursday night, it was pretty clear: Attorney General Merrick Garland. I am sure the committee members would love to change public opinion (which hardened fairly quickly in the weeks after the attack on the Capitol) and to convince Republicans that former President Donald Trump cannot be trusted again with the presidency.

But Thursday’s hearing felt like a desperate plea to the Department of Justice to indict Trump and his co-conspirators for what was repeatedly called an “illegal” attempt to circumvent the results of the 2020 election. Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who co-chaired the committee, delivered a long presentation that felt like the opening arguments of a criminal trial. The phrase “you will hear…” was used multiple times, just the way a prosecutor would lay out an opening argument to a jury before proceeding with evidence and witness testimony.

The initial construction of the hearing may have hampered its effectiveness. Committee chairman Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson’s long speech (complete with his own personal narrative and historical anecdotes) had virtually nothing to do with the matter at hand and risked losing people who might have tuned in for something other than the usual boring congressional pablum. Thompson’s comments about the “peaceful transfer of power” rang a little hollow given that he personally voted in favor of objecting to the results in Ohio during the counting of former President George W. Bush’s electoral college votes in 2005.Thompson was always a strange choice to lead this committee, given his history of trying to interrupt a previous president’s electoral college certification.

The first hearing of the January 6 select committee lived up to the ample hype surrounding it, providing a cogent case — with compelling new details — for Donald Trump’s culpability in the violent effort to overturn the 2020 election.

The thesis of the committee’s case — that “January 6 was the culmination of an attempted coup” — was laid out by Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) at the very beginning of the hearing. It was bolstered with a somber presentation carried live across broadcast and most cable networks that previewed the seven additional hearings the committee will hold in the coming weeks.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, a committee staffer said ​​the goal was to present “new details showing that violence was a result of a coordinated, multi-step effort to overturn the 2020 election and stop the transfer of power and that Donald Trump was at the center of that effort.” Despite questions about whether the committee could deliver any new information — there’s been extensive reporting, not to mention an entire impeachment trial on this already — it did.

It was one of the most gripping evenings of television in memory.

Americans who chose to watch the first January 6 House select committee hearing saw the people closest to former President Donald Trump lay out in damning detail the violent insurrection at the US Capitol, tracing a direct line of responsibility to Trump for leading what looks very much like an attempted coup, a plot to seize power by force and deny the American people the government of their choosing.

It was a searing indictment, made all the more powerful because the people who provided the most damaging accusations against Trump were those closest to him, people who had vigorously defended him in the past.

The historic hearing was devastating for the twice-impeached former president. But will it make a difference? For a sample of the depth of cynicism about the prospects that Trump will be held accountable, look at the comments following this report of an investigation into his handling of gifts he received as president.

I’ve been wondering who the House select committee investigating the January 6 riot sees as its primary audience. On Thursday night, it was pretty clear: Attorney General Merrick Garland. I am sure the committee members would love to change public opinion (which hardened fairly quickly in the weeks after the attack on the Capitol) and to convince Republicans that former President Donald Trump cannot be trusted again with the presidency.

But Thursday’s hearing felt like a desperate plea to the Department of Justice to indict Trump and his co-conspirators for what was repeatedly called an “illegal” attempt to circumvent the results of the 2020 election. Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who co-chaired the committee, delivered a long presentation that felt like the opening arguments of a criminal trial. The phrase “you will hear…” was used multiple times, just the way a prosecutor would lay out an opening argument to a jury before proceeding with evidence and witness testimony.

The initial construction of the hearing may have hampered its effectiveness. Committee chairman Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson’s long speech (complete with his own personal narrative and historical anecdotes) had virtually nothing to do with the matter at hand and risked losing people who might have tuned in for something other than the usual boring congressional pablum. Thompson’s comments about the “peaceful transfer of power” rang a little hollow given that he personally voted in favor of objecting to the results in Ohio during the counting of former President George W. Bush’s electoral college votes in 2005.Thompson was always a strange choice to lead this committee, given his history of trying to interrupt a previous president’s electoral college certification.

The first hearing of the January 6 select committee lived up to the ample hype surrounding it, providing a cogent case — with compelling new details — for Donald Trump’s culpability in the violent effort to overturn the 2020 election.

The thesis of the committee’s case — that “January 6 was the culmination of an attempted coup” — was laid out by Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) at the very beginning of the hearing. It was bolstered with a somber presentation carried live across broadcast and most cable networks that previewed the seven additional hearings the committee will hold in the coming weeks.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, a committee staffer said ​​the goal was to present “new details showing that violence was a result of a coordinated, multi-step effort to overturn the 2020 election and stop the transfer of power and that Donald Trump was at the center of that effort.” Despite questions about whether the committee could deliver any new information — there’s been extensive reporting, not to mention an entire impeachment trial on this already — it did.

It was one of the most gripping evenings of television in memory.

Americans who chose to watch the first January 6 House select committee hearing saw the people closest to former President Donald Trump lay out in damning detail the violent insurrection at the US Capitol, tracing a direct line of responsibility to Trump for leading what looks very much like an attempted coup, a plot to seize power by force and deny the American people the government of their choosing.

It was a searing indictment, made all the more powerful because the people who provided the most damaging accusations against Trump were those closest to him, people who had vigorously defended him in the past.

The historic hearing was devastating for the twice-impeached former president. But will it make a difference? For a sample of the depth of cynicism about the prospects that Trump will be held accountable, look at the comments following this report of an investigation into his handling of gifts he received as president.