Major newspapers reported last week that former President Donald Trump is under investigation in the U.S. Department of Justice’s probe of the efforts to thwart a peaceful transition of power after the 2020 presidential election.
Based on interviews with attorneys of clients brought up before a federal grand jury, the Justice Department’s investigation is wide-ranging. Prosecutors are asking witnesses about their contacts with Trump concerning both the scheme to substitute fake electors for duly chosen delegates to the Electoral College and the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Marc Short, chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence, reportedly testified about Trump’s efforts to induce Pence to delay or stop the electoral vote count certifying the election of Joe Biden as president of the United States.
In addition to obtaining witness testimony, the Justice Department acquired phone records of key White House officials, including Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows. On Jan. 6, Meadows received numerous calls and texts from Trump aides and supporters about the need for the president to stop the violence at the Capitol.
As we know from the hearings of the U.S. House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, Trump watched the bloodshed unfold but waited three hours to call off his followers.
Indeed, at one point during the attack, Trump tweeted his disappointment with Pence performing his constitutional duties, launching the mob on a mad search for the vice president that led them to within 40 feet of a potentially deadly confrontation with Secret Service agents protecting Pence.
Until last week, all the public knew about the Justice Department investigation was the criminal charges brought against about 840 individuals, including leaders of white supremacy groups, who entered the Capitol building.
Critics accused the Justice Department’s leader, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, of lacking urgency and failing to go after Trump.
In response, Garland appeared publicly, telling NBC News that his department will “hold accountable anyone who was criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the legitimate, lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next.”
Important questions
More than 18 months after the Jan. 6 insurrection, it appears that the Justice Department and House Select Committee investigations are finally in sync.
How did we get to this point? Here are four leading questions:
1. Did the televised House hearings this summer wake up Garland, the Justice Department and the FBI, or were they moving ahead at their own pace?
Garland’s supporters say he was slowly building a case against the plotters of election subversion, working on lower-level operatives first to compel their testimony against the higher-ups.
The attorney general first needed to bring cases against key participants, such as Trump political adviser Stephen Bannon, who refused to cooperate with the government.
Furthermore, the Justice Department obtained Meadows’ phone records in April, before the House hearings began.
On the other hand, it was reported that Justice Department investigators never contacted House committee star witness Cassidy Hutchinson, the aide to Meadows who told the nation that Trump literally fought the Secret Service driver who declined to take the president to the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Whether or not the summer hearings lit a fire under Garland, it is fair to say that the House select committee provided the attorney general political cover to move more aggressively against the former president.
2. How successful have the House Jan. 6 hearings been in capturing public attention?
When public hearings began on June 9, few people believed they would attract an audience equal to that of Sunday Night Football. They did.
The hearings were stylized, made-for-television dramas that included live footage of the insurrection (some “never before seen”), taped interviews, scripted narratives and live witnesses, most of them former and even current Trump supporters.
Each hearing presented a different angle of the investigation, always placing Trump at the center and delivering vivid revelations, such as the president splattering the West Wing dining room walls with ketchup from a smashed plate when former Attorney General William Barr publicly contradicted Trump’s claim of widespread voter fraud.
Television critics gave the hearings a thumbs up. The “cast of characters” included: the lead actress, U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the Republican co-chair of the committee; lead actor, U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md.; heroes, the Capitol Police officers; victims, ordinary folks whose lives were ruined; and villain Trump with henchmen Meadows, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and others.
For comic relief, there were the Jan. 6 antics of U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. Hawley gave MAGA supporters the power sign as he entered the Capitol and then, when the mob broke into the building, quickly fled like a shopper hell-bent on getting to the back-of-the-store specials on Black Friday morning.
Thanks to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who snubbed the investigation, no Republican members who might have defended Trump or disrupted the proceedings served on the select committee.
Committee members have been detectives in a true crime story, uniting to solve the mystery of who was responsible for the death and destruction during an assault on democracy.
3. How successful are the hearings in changing the political landscape?
Polls indicate that the hearings have not changed the minds of many partisans. Most Democrats believe Trump should be prosecuted. Most Republicans think Trump was the victim of election fraud and was not responsible for the Jan. 6 uprising.
However, independents have been moved by what they saw. According to a Morning Consult survey, only 29% have favorable views of Trump, down 10 points from earlier this year. Over 60% of independents say Trump was at least somewhat responsible for the insurrection.
No doubt, Trump will go forward with plans to run for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination. He may formally announce his candidacy before the midterm elections, challenging Garland to indict him and risk making the probe of 2020 election subversion look like a political witch hunt.
On the other hand, there are signs that some Republicans want to move away from the former president. Dr. Mehmet Oz, the GOP candidate for U.S. Senate who owes his nomination to Trump’s endorsement, is not mentioning his benefactor while campaigning across Pennsylvania.
Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida — another potential 2024 GOP nominee — appears to have the support of the Murdoch family, which owns Fox News. The editorial boards of two Murdoch newspapers, the Wall Street Journal and New York Post, have condemned Trump’s behavior on Jan. 6.
One person the hearings have not helped is President Joe Biden. Biden’s public approval rating sank under 40% during the summer. Three-quarters of Democrats polled recently do not want him to be the party’s 2024 presidential nominee.
Still, Biden runs about even with Trump in 2024 trial heat polls. Last week, Biden went after his potential election rival for not supporting law enforcement over the Capitol mob.
4. What is at stake in Pennsylvania?
Speaking of 2024, the House select committee emphasizes that the purpose of its investigation is not to dwell on the past, but to learn from it.
As U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., stated, efforts to rig the 2024 elections are well under way. State by state, people who still believe the falsehood that Trump actually won the 2020 election are aiming to take over the administration of elections.
If elected governor of Pennsylvania, Republican state Sen. Doug Mastriano — who was at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and has been connected to the fake elector plot — would appoint the commonwealth’s chief election official, the secretary of state.
The Pennsylvania governor’s race is the best opportunity voters anywhere this November will have to hold the insurrectionists accountable.
If the House hearings have taught us nothing else, the future of democracy in Pennsylvania is at stake.
E. Fletcher McClellan, Ph.D., is a professor of political science at Elizabethtown College. Twitter: @mcclelef.
