Jan. 6 hearings: Committee zeroes in on Trump during Day 2

We were reminded today that the threat of the “big lie” penetrated into the personal lives — and even the lives of some family members — of officials who dared to act honestly regarding the 2020 election outcome. This includes Republican Al Schmidt, a former Philadelphia city commissioner, who testified today that he performed his duties under withering pressure from Trump and his team. He received death threats for simply doing his job, he said.

As Schmidt testified today, the Philadelphia district attorney’s office announced serious charges against the co-founder of Vets for Trump in connection with conduct that threatens our democratic process. The defendant, Joshua Macias, has been charged with attempted interference with primaries and elections, hindering the performance of a duty, criminal conspiracy, and violations of the Uniform Firearms Act. 

The “big lie” has created a dangerous risk we’ll be addressing for the foreseeable future

It remains to be seen what, if any, criminal charges will be brought against Trump tied to his 2020 election lies. But he's already multiple facing civil lawsuits stemming from the Capitol riot, including those brought by Democratic lawmakers and police officers.

Ja'han Jones, writer for MSNBC's "The ReidOut Blog," explains how Trump's legal troubles have likely only just begun:

"We’ve seen mountains of evidence — with more likely to come — that Trump simply refused to accept the reality of his election loss and took drastic steps to alter it," Jones wrote. "That, as the committee has laid out, included weaponizing a violent mob to stop the vice president from certifying the electoral college votes. I firmly believe all of this may be grounds for criminal charges, but the evidence could shore up civil cases against Trump, as well."

Read Ja’han’s full piece below.

The House committee ended Monday's hearing by pointing out how much money Trump and his allies have raised using his "big lie" talking points. Millions and millions of dollars have flowed into MAGA coffers because of fundraising that relied heavily on rhetoric about election fraud.

As ethics expert and MSNBC Daily columnist Richard Painter pointed out all the way back in April 2021, Trump has long proven himself to be an expert at these kinds of emotional appeals. And he's not usually the one who suffers as a result. Painter notes:

"The real kicker is that many will not admit they were defrauded. They will continue to believe in Trump, just as he will continue to tell them that he won the 2020 election. And, if they just send more money, he promises he will come back in 2024 and win another."

Read Richard's full piece below.

Pak’s resignation, as I intimated earlier, centered on Trump’s refusal to accept the results of the Georgia election, and in particular, the former president’s fixation on a video of election workers counting ballots at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena. Fueled by Giuliani’s nonsensical claims, Trump and others insisted that the workers depicted in that video double- or triple-counted a “suitcase full of ballots” of dubious legitimacy, and Trump was furious that Pak, who Trump called a “Never Trumper” in his infamous call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, had done nothing about it.

Pak testified this afternoon that he agreed to investigate the State Farm Arena episode after a Dec. 4, 2020, phone conversation with Barr. But ultimately, following interviews with the individuals shown on the tape and viewing the entirety of the video, as opposed to the misleading clip circulating on social media, the FBI and Pak determined that Trump’s interpretation of events were “false.” The so-called “suitcase” was, in fact, “an official lockbox” of ballots that came from under the table on which the workers were counting ballots. Ultimately, Pak testified, he is aware of “no evidence of widespread fraud” sufficient to undermine the results of the election.

Of course, what the committee did not explore with Pak is perhaps of equal interest. Pak was not asked about his resignation, and no one referenced it, other than to note it in the overall timeline. That could be for strategic reasons, however. As Pak testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, the person who told him to resign was then-acting Deputy Attorney General Rich Donoghue, a key player in other aspects of Trump’s scheme to remain in power — and an expected witness about those events at a hearing later this week.

Former Philadelphia city commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican, said that his approach to overseeing the 2020 election results in his city entailed taking “seriously every case that was referred to us, no matter how fantastical, no matter how absurd.”

One of those “absurd” claims was that Democrats committed fraud by submitting ballots on behalf of dead citizens. Schmidt said the claim was entirely unfounded. “Not only was there not evidence of 8,000 dead voters — there wasn’t evidence of 8,” he said. 

But more chilling was his description of the mob that attacked him after Trump singled him out for speaking the truth on social media.

Fox News refused to broadcast the first hearing last week, with some hosts referring to the committee's presentation as "propaganda."

This week, however, appears to be a different story. The network aired the hearing live on Monday. And unlike on Thursday night, when Fox News host Tucker Carlson ranted over silent footage of the hearings, the full audio was included.

Maybe Fox News is changing its tune on Trump's disinformation campaign. Or maybe it just got wind of Thursday strong ratings.

Dinesh D’Souza is many things: A far-right public intellectual, prolific filmmaker and author, and infamous pro-Trump social media troll. What he is not, according to Barr’s taped testimony, is a voter fraud expert. Not by a long shot.

In testimony played by the committee on Monday morning, Barr literally laughed at the idea that D’Souza’s (debunked) documentary “2000 Mules” had uncovered any proof to support Trump’s election falsehoods. The film, which is wildly popular among the MAGA faithful, was “completely lacking” in actual evidence, Barr said.

Yes, former Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien was supposed to be today’s star witness. But he is not the only one with eagerly anticipated testimony. BJay Pak, the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, also has quite a story to tell — a story of interest not only to Congress but to Fulton County, Georgia’s District Attorney Fani Willis as well.

Think of Stepien and Pak as bookends, in some respects, for Trump’s scheme: Stepien was present when Trump was told soon after the election that he lost, fair and square. Pak, on the other hand, is an important witness on the tail end of the timeline: He was told on or around January 3 that Trump would fire him if he did not resign. Pak’s offense? Failing to find fraud sufficient to overturn the Georgia results. 

Pak has previously testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Trump was especially focused on alleged fraud by election workers at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena. But after investigating those allegations alongside the FBI and GA state officials, he concluded there was no fraud. Ultimately, however, Pak was forced resigned on Jan. 4, the morning after then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and other senior DOJ leaders squared off with Jeffrey Bossert Clark in the Oval Office — and won. That Pak was forced out highlights that Trump had no intention of giving up.

Former White House aide Dan Scavino has refused to cooperate with this committee’s investigation. As a result, the House voted to hold him in contempt two months ago. But while the Justice Department has declined to prosecute Scavino for contempt of Congress, Barr’s testimony highlights that Scavino, who is understood to have had access to Trump’s Twitter account and may even have drafted several of his post-election tweets, could have criminal exposure as well.

As Zeeshan also noted, Barr's testimony has been quite revealing today. On November 23, Barr testified that the fraud claims were “just not meritorious, they are not panning out.” After a contentious Oval Office meeting, he walked out of the Oval Office to find Jared Kushner and Scavino. In videotaped testimony played by the committee, Barr says he asked them, “How long — how long is he going to carry on with this stolen election stuff? Where is this going to go?” That suggests that Scavino, who Barr emphasized was “a reasonable guy,” knew the country’s chief law enforcement officer believed the election fraud narrative was a fiction. And that knowledge, for Scavino as for others, could be a dangerous thing.