If you were going to draw up a list of the people most responsible for the latest indictment of Donald Trump, the former president himself would be at the top, followed by the prosecutors who have brought the case. Republicans in Congress perversely deserve a great deal of credit, too, since they could have exiled Trump from political life and perhaps spared him more intense legal scrutiny if they had voted to convict him in the impeachment trial over his role in the siege of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Ultimately, however, you cannot tell the story of Trump’s historic indictment without Nancy Pelosi. It was the then-Speaker of the House who insisted that there be a congressional inquiry following January 6. And it was the work of the select committee she fashioned that finally appears to have spurred a reluctant Justice Department to action, setting in motion a more intense phase of criminal scrutiny focused on Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The resulting indictment closely tracks the select committee’s work and findings, presenting a factual narrative that traces — almost identically — the evidence presented by the committee of a sophisticated, multipronged effort by Trump to remain in power that culminated in the mayhem at the U.S. Capitol.
NY mag doing yoga with that stretch.
I don’t know how much credit can go to Pelosi specifically but the current indictment is absolutely due to the fact-finding of the congressional Jan 6 committee. If Liz Cheney and others on that committee had not done the work they did, there would not the current court cases. Jack Smith’s evidence is based on the evidence found during the committee hearings.
That's fair and a good point. Repubs could have worked to break the committee as they often do. Instead, Liz played ball. It could also be recognized as an 'unforced error' on the part of Trunpian Republicans.
I have a problem with the kind of fanboyism that's pushed in American politics, especially around mainstream Democrats who do as much to empower the status quo as Republicans, with Pelosi key amount them. It's both a common Democratic fundraising teope but also, apparently, a small cottage industry among journalists.
I think we need to be very clear and frank with ourselves about how Democrats with their obsessions with decorum effectively supported Trump and his policies for the duration of his presidency. There were Democrats that tried to resist and they got told to sit down and shut up by leadership. I think this was very representative by that farse of an impeachment. And so finally we got some paper resistance after a coup and attempts on the speaker and vice presidents life. So is the expectation that Democrats need to let it go that far before truly knuckeling down and picking a fight? What exactly is being promoted here?
[not directed at you, simply asked more generally]
I'll be deep in the cold cold ground before I praise Pelosi for anything
I'm reminded of the phrase, "Even a broke clock is right twice a day." Liz, and that other Republican did a good job. Not praise, just a fact. Not that any Trump supporter sees their (R) support of the committee as legit, but everyone else does.
Kinzinger is the other one.
As individuals, they seem to be people I can strongly disagree with on policy matters, but would still be able to hammer out reasonable compromises with. However, at this stage in the game, anyone who still holds on to the Republican party is complicit. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, for all the good things they have said and done in the context of the Jan 6 Congressional hearings, are complicit.
The article's point is that the committee was successful because of who was in it, and Pelosi was the one who orchestrated that, not showing McConnell or McCarthy to get away with their shit.
It takes a village