Deterrence would also suggest a kind of established consensus: in fact, a particular crime has been committed and the future goal is to prevent other similar crimes from being committed. With the many starting points of the problem and no general consensus on what the real problem of the Trump era is, satisfaction here can be difficult to achieve. There is also a kind of dark night concern of the soul, “The Godfather Part II”, which appears in early vote after the New York indictment, that at least some parts of the country may find that prosecution political and don’t seem to mind. And Mr. Trump is advanced lots of money and cemented his voting advantage after the first indictment.
However, consensus and order were unusual. Ms. Lofgren noted that the January 6 committee was different from any experience she has had, starting with its unique presentation structure. “You have to have a unified view of what the mission is, and the mission is to find all the facts that we can, then tell them,” she said. “There is no political division about that. But that doesn’t mean we see everything exactly the same, exactly at the same time.” She explained that the committee used closed discussions to reach consensus: “There are times when I think about one thing and when we spend a few hours thinking about it, I think about it. persuaded by the views of others. . And the same goes for the other members. That is also rare.”
Gaining a general idea of what happened and why things went wrong, even in a smaller group behind closed doors, has real appeal, even if it’s not. is how we want a country to operate. Instead, the best that society can do is continue to apply a kind of social weight to Mr. Trump – paying attention to the precise memory of events, creating legal barriers and public scrutiny, which can lead to prosecutions of varying quality – a little heavier, a little more, a little more to try to contain him. It’s like a mixed version of deterrence and truth, with a society trying to do something, anything, with volatile precedents for the future.
Even in all this chaos of information and unclear goals, a story can still stand out as a representation of unpleasant parts of this time. In a piece of document released by the selection committee over Christmas, in an episode you might have missed, former White House deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews described a debate that a Several press staff members were entangled about who would benefit if Mr. Trump had stopped the uprising, and whether he should condemn the violence.
Miss Matthews wanted him to do just that: tell everyone to go home. According to her account on the day from her secret testimony, it is suggested that people from the anti-French movement were behind the riots; that is, Ms. Matthews said, all the more reason to condemn the violence. According to Ms. Matthews, there are people who argue that condemning the riots will “win” the media, because Democrats are not required to condemn violence in the protests after the death of George Floyd in 2020.
“I pointed at the TV,” Ms. Matthews testified last year, “and said – I guess shouted – ‘Do you think we’re winning right now?’” She became emotional, leaving from the room and later that day, resigned.
On the one hand, this is a nonsense to know – a vivid but peripheral episode, from omitted supporting documents to a report from a defunct committee. On the other hand, it speaks to a lasting shift in American politics since 2016: When Ms. Matthews was working for House Republicans and testifying publicly last summer, the Assembly Republican Congress in the House of Representatives call she was a “liar” and a “pawn” on Twitter, before deleting the post.
