Jan. 6 hearings: What witnesses and evidence revealed

Whether we view tonight’s first hearing as an opening argument in a trial, or as a sneak preview of a made-for-television movie, this was a compelling evening that should cause concerned Americans to come back for more. We watched video of Trump’s own attorney general testifying that election fraud allegations were “bullshit.” We heard Trump’s own daughter say that she agreed with the attorney general. We heard a wounded Capitol officer remind us that Jan. 6 was akin to combat. We saw evidence that violent domestic extremist groups were inspired by the president to act out violently. 

The way forward is clearer now. Over the next days and weeks, the committee will submit evidence on two fronts. First, that Trump and those around him knew that violence was coming and did nothing to stop it. And second, that despite understanding that President Joe Biden won the election, Trump and his conspirators continued their attempts to overturn a legitimate election. DOJ, are you watching? 

I agree with Michael Cohen’s take from earlier, that the lack of pro-Trump voices tonight resulted in a refreshing break from “the usual partisan food fights that break out at these hearings.” But I’d go a step further: This was one of the most effective congressional hearings in a long time, mostly because of how few members of Congress we actually heard from.

At most hearings, you’ll all too often see members wander into whatever committee or subcommittee is meeting just ahead of their allotted time to question witnesses. They’ll ask a few grandstanding, camera-ready questions in hopes of producing a good soundbite or viral moment. Sometimes what’s been asked is even a direct repeat of whatever had just been asked minutes ago. They’ll then wander back out of the room without bothering to listen to anyone else’s line of inquiry. It undercuts any belief that these hearings are a valuable use of anyone’s time. 

Instead, we saw Thompson and Cheney deliver opening statements before asking a few focused questions of the witnesses present while the rest of the committee listened intently. It will be nice if we see some more active back-and-forth questioning during some of the subsequent hearings from the full panel. There are some real bright, curious minds present in that room whose perspectives will be interesting to hear as they pull information out of witnesses. But for tonight, silence was golden.

A lot of ink has been spilled on the topic of whether Trump knew he’d lost the election. It’s an important question — if not the most important question in the context of potential criminal culpability. 

Thursday, the committee seriously undercut the theory that Trump actually believed his “big lie.” (And one strongly suspects the committee is not done yet in this regard). Tonight we learned, for example, that Trump was told by both his data experts and his own attorney general that he’d lost.

This matters because of a legal doctrine called “willful blindness,” which says a defendant can’t continue to maintain he didn’t know something — in this case, that Trump didn’t know he’d lost the election — if they have been credibly notified of the truth. Hearing the truth from your attorney general, a man who’d gone along with virtually all of your other whims, would seem to qualify. Even Ivanka was compelled by the evidence against fraud, saying she respected and believed Barr when he said no fraud tainted the outcome of the election. Trump’s continued insistence that he’d won, despite credible evidence there wasn’t any fraud and he’d actually lost, puts prosecutors one step closer to having the evidence necessary to bring criminal charges. 

Willful blindness is especially relevant in terms of Trump’s efforts to compel Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” him 11,780 votes. (Raffensberger will reportedly testify in person later in these hearings.) 11,780, of course, was the precise number of votes Trump needed to beat Biden in the state. It seems almost too obvious to bear repeating, but if you know you’ve lost, and you ask people you think are on your side to manufacture enough ballots to let you win, then you’re engaging in criminal conduct.

 Cheney’s exchange with Officer Caroline Edwards was riveting and deeply emotional. Cheney asked Edwards to describe a video showing Edwards being overwhelmed and ultimately knocked out after rioters pushed against a barricade. 

Edwards’ head hit the concrete steps behind her as rioters stampeded through, en route to the Capitol. When she regained consciousness, Edwards said she made her way to the Senate and House’s west terraces to help officers who were fighting another group of rioters. There, Edwards said she and Officer Brian Sicknick, who died the day after the attack, were sprayed with an unknown chemical agent. Edwards testified that she was tear-gassed after that. 

Her testimony gave viewers a sense of how numerous the rioters were, and how difficult it was for officers to quell the violent revolt. And it stood in stark contrast to conservatives’ consistently dismissive descriptions of the riot. 

Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde, for example, compared the riot to a “normal tourist visit” last year. 

But the officers who were there know the real truth, and Edwards spoke for them tonight. 

“It was carnage. It was chaos,” she said. It doesn’t get clearer than that.

As a 25-year veteran of federal law enforcement, I was moved by Edwards’ testimony. Her experience on Jan. 6 was akin to being at war — sadly — with the very citizens whose Capitol building she protects.

In fact, Edwards noted that she was “not combat-trained” but what she went through that day was like hours of hand-to-hand combat. She was knocked out, sprayed with chemical agents and exposed to other people’s blood.

I never again want to hear GOP members of Congress, who defend the Capitol attack or attempt to minimize it, claim they are pro-law enforcement or that they “back the blue.”

Video the Jan. 6 committee showed of the Capitol attack and Trump’s response to it was harrowing. So harrowing, in fact, that even Mick Mulvaney — who served as the Trump White House’s budget director and its “acting” chief of staff — felt compelled to comment on Twitter.

Mulvaney has been attempting to rehabilitate and distance himself from Trump World since he resigned in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack and has joined CBS News as a political analyst. But even with the dig at the committee’s leaders, his tweet emphasized just how compelling the video of the insurrectionist’s siege that was shown might be to some former Trump fans.

The committee’s investigation is now focusing on Trump’s influence over violent extremist groups, including both the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. Specifically, investigators are seeking to link former President Donald Trump’s now infamous “Stand back and stand by” debate response to the Proud Boys’ violence on Jan. 6. 

The committee noted that Proud Boys were immediately inspired by those remarks, with one leader responding on Telegram: “Standing down and standing by, Sir.” Trump tweets were also cited as inspiring Oath Keepers and Proud Boys to action. 

The strategy here appears to be to submit evidence that Trump had a role in radicalizing and motivating these groups to take action on his behalf. We’ll likely see more of this evidence in the days ahead.

NBC News' Capitol Hill correspondent Ali Vitali chatted with an emotional Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., outside the hearing minutes ago.

Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards told the committee she gave her “literal blood, sweat and tears” while defending the Capitol on Jan. 6. She described being assaulted and verbally abused by the violent rioters.

“They dared to question my honor,” she testified. “They dared to question my loyalty and they dared to question my duty. I am a proud American and will gladly sacrifice everything to make sure the America my grandfather sacrificed for is here for many years to come.”