House Convenes January 6th Hearings: Watch It For Yourself
The House Select Committee formed to hold January 6th hearings started off with the testimony of four Capitol Police officers invovled.
Four police officers delivered emotional testimony Tuesday about the physical and verbal abuse they endured defending the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 from a mob of supporters of President Donald Trump, as a House select committee holds its first hearing on the insurrection.
Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), the panel’s chairman, pledged not to give ground to “the big lie” — Trump’s claim to have won the 2020 election — that he said propelled the attack. Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), one of two Republicans appointed to the panel by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said no member of Congress should “whitewash what happened that day.”
The officers testifying to the panel urged members of Congress to explore the role Trump played in the events of Jan. 6, with Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn comparing him to someone who hired a “hit man” to carry out his crime.
“I want you to get to the bottom of that,” Dunn told the committee.
Dunn’s comments came in response to a question from Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), the panel’s chairman, who asked the officers what they would like to see the committee investigate.
D.C. police officer Daniel Hodges offered a similar exhortation.
“As patrol officers, we can only, you know, deal with the crimes that have happened on the streets, the misdemeanors and occasionally the violent felonies,” he said. “But you guys are the only ones we’ve got to deal with crimes that occur above us. I need you guys to address if anyone in power had a role in this, if anyone in power coordinated or aided and abetted or tried to downplay, tried to prevent the investigation of this terrorist attack because we can’t do it. We’re not allowed to. And I think a majority of Americans are really looking forward to that as well.”
D.C. police officer Michael Fanone, meanwhile, urged the committee to look into “whether or not there was collaboration between those members [of Congress), their staff and these terrorists.”
Watch the hearing for yourself here:
What’s astounding, as in not at all surprising, is to see yet another data point about how all the high minded rhetoric we have heard since forever about law and order, Burkean respect for institutions, and patriotism are revealed as just absurd proxy battles, tactics and means to an end.
When they stop being useful, they are immediately dropped.
The real battle here is over who is an American, who is legitimate, and whose interests and rights are protected.
The protestors (literally) wore “Back The Blue” to a protest where they beat up cops defending the election process.
They don’t see any contradiction here- in their mind, they and they alone are real legitimate Americans, and anyone who stands in their way like Officer Fanone, is a traitor and enemy.Report
The people backing BLM claim to believe the cops are engaged in racially motivated KKK style murders. The result has been scores or hundreds of riots.
The people backing Trump claim to believe the election was stolen and Trump actually won. We’ve had an order or three fewer riots and the like.
5 died in the riot, 3 from natural causes, 1 shot by the cops, 1 died from an overdose.
Given the level of stress the system is under, we’re doing very well.Report
What would it look like if it weren’t?
This is the point I’ve mentioned a few times, that the slide into an unfree society doesn’t look dramatic or even unusual for people like you and me because we are the ones the system seeks to protect.
Plenty of people lived entire lives, and still do, under awful repressive regimes without ever once experiencing any of it.
What’s the alarm bell that needs to ring, for you to decide that things are not going well?Report
What would it look like if it weren’t?
I imagine that the police in progressive cities would be able to be held up as exemplary in that imagined system.
Plenty of people lived entire lives, and still do, under awful repressive regimes without ever once experiencing any of it.
They vote for these repressive regimes.
They feel good about themselves for voting for these repressive regimes.
They don’t feel complicit at all.Report
Democrats could rein in our most violent cops without even looking at a Republican.
Really?
Recent events have not supported this assertion.Report
You seem to think that that’s because they tried and failed.
Instead of thinking that they had different goals than the ones they publicly proclaimed to have.
“What’s astounding, as in not at all surprising…” is what it looks like in cities run by people that you would vote for in a New York Minute. And feel good about voting for them.Report
What were those goals, of the people who voted for George Gascon, who is now facing a recall?Report
Who is he being recalled by?Report
I realized that I could do my own research.
Well… I suppose we’ll see what happens.
It’s apparently easy to ask for a recall.
Perhaps it doesn’t mean anything… unless this paragraph from earlier in the story means something:
Report
Actually your point (that Democrats could enact police reform in jurisdictions they control) is trivially true, as is the fact that Republicans can enact police reform in jurisdictions they control.
But they choose not to.Report
Is my takeaway supposed to be “this makes it okay”?Report
You tell me, what is your takeaway?Report
“I don’t have to address this particular criticism of Team Good because Team Evil does it too. And now I can go back to my question of ‘What would it look like if it weren’t?'”Report
Oh if that’s what you want, then I agree with you that Team Good should be more woke.Report
Maybe they should try to “Reform the Police”.
“We voted in a prosecutor that wanted to give murderers less onerous sentences!”
“Maybe you should try to ‘Reform the Police’?”Report
As you yourself mentioned in the other thread, there are plenty of good and effective marketing campaigns which can defeat Reform The Police.
What you and I are both saying, in different ways, is that the constituency for actual police reform in America is very small.
I may argue that it is entirely within the Democratic Party, but you are correct that even then, it is a minority and easily defeated.Report
What you and I are both saying, in different ways, is that the constituency for actual police reform in America is very small.
Chip, I am *NOT* saying that. The constituency for actual police reform in America is pretty big. It may not be a *MAJORITY*, but it is still large enough for there to be forward progress made.
The emphasis needs to be on stuff like “reforming the police” rather than “electing prosecutors willing to overlook shoplifting”, though.
If people talk about how “electing prosecutors willing to give murderers lighter sentences” is “reforming the police”, I’d wonder if they weren’t trying to sabotage the very idea of Police Reform.Report
Where would we see evidence of this constituency being this large?Report
DO YOU REMEMBER LAST SUMMER AT FREAKING ALLReport
He’s got a point. If you’re trying to make policy on an “everyone wants this” plank and you can’t make policy, then you should question if everyone really wants this.
My impression is the sub-urbs see no point in (their) local police being reformed. That implies if they’re included in your polling, then you’re getting lip service.
The cities have the problem that their politicians are owned by the unions, including the police union.Report
My argument isn’t that the dem leadership can’t make policy.
My argument is that they have no desire to make policy.
They argue for defunding… but then go back to refunding. They argue for changing how prosecutions are done… but instead of ignoring stuff like “the guy who sells loosies”, they’re ignoring shoplifting up to $950.
There are a handful of places that have done a handful of things that actually work toward reforming the police… getting rid of QI, for example. There’s even a city or two that has disbanded the police department and rebuilt it from the ground up. (It ended up costing more money rather than costing less so it’s incompatible with “defund” messages.)
But, for the most part, reforming the cops is something that leadership has avoided and even taken steps to thwart.Report
It sounds like you are just doing the pundit fallacy, where you assume a massive latent constituency for a policy that, coincidentally, aligns perfectly with your own desires.
Like, you strongly support not prosecuting loosies, but strongly oppose not prosecuting crimes under $950.
Who, other than Mr. Jaybird of Colorado Springs, feels this way? Who even sees these two things as materially different, other than you?Report
I’m also remembering last year.
I support the police not getting involved in de minimus crime. (Including victimless crimes!)
Shoplifting $500 worth of goods is not de minimus.
B&E into a car is not de minimus.Report
Great.
You and what army, pal?
I mean you certainly aren’t suggesting that the massive crowds last summer also felt this way, are you?Report
I’m suggesting that Police Reform is something that has passionate support.
Now, when I say “Police Reform”, I do not mean “Defund the Police”.
I do not mean “Abolish the Police.”
I do not mean “be more lenient toward people who break into cars.”
I do not mean “give murderers lighter sentences.”
If I were hoping to cut Police Reform off at the knees before it so much as left the gate, however, I would push for all of those.Report
I agree, in the same way that there is passionate support for Fiscal Conservatism, and when I say Fiscal Conservatism, I mean “cut funding for things I don’t like and increase funding for things I do.”Report
Police Reform is possible.
Seriously. It’s possible.
This weird defeatist stance that says that you have to either have prosecutors overlook shoplifting (or other things that are “progressive”) and the other option is nothing-at-all is odd.
It is possible to pass laws that do such things as hold cops accountable. It has actually been done.Report
I agree it’s possible. Just difficult and requires a lot of compromises and alliances with strange and unpleasant bedfellows.
Your own argument shows this, that one message (eliminate de minimum offenses) will garner your support but a very similar one ( eliminate small dollar amounts) will not.
Now imagine threading this needle with a million people who think differently than you do and who have very different priorities.Report
Maybe they should focus on what Colorado accomplished, then.
Instead of saying “Meh, we’re not going to go after shoplifters” and then quickly pivoting to “what? I thought you guys said that you wanted us to not kill people like Eric Garner?!?!?”Report
Team Red is the party of God +Guns+ Moats+ Money. Even if 80% of Team Red wants “sensible” gun control, that section of policy is determined by +Guns.
Team Blue is the party of +Gov Unions. Asking Team Blue for Police reform is also asking them to break up their coalition.
Talks about “police reform” often become “end racism in policing”, which means… something undefined. It’s the actual job of Blue politicians to make sure that reform doesn’t happen.
Similarly talks about Education Reform become “pay the teachers more” (only Team Red can talk about Charters).
The solution is to get rid of gov unions, whose entire purpose is to increase the size of the gov, take more money from my wallet, and reduce accountability for their group.Report
I think you may be overdetermining there. Even most unions are not that warm and cuddly when it comes to police unions which have a very darker and less liberal friendly origin story. You’d probably be surprised how little non-police unions would fuss if (and it’s a big IF) the local politicians who actually have the authority on matters of police governance, took the police unions to the woodshed.Report
But police reform isn’t “Make the police less racist!” or something like that.
It includes, but is not limited to, “get rid of no-knock raids”. “Get rid of asset forfeiture”. “Quit automatically giving Qualified Immunity”.Report
Citizen review panels. The ability to fire sub-standard cops.
Much easier to just push the “racism” button and trainwreck the conversation because no one is in favor of racism so that’s something we can all oppose.
There are other things we can do, claim the victim was a perp, but that’s gotten old. However big picture Team Blue politicians are elected with union support, and that support has a cost.Report
Most local mayoral and municipal politicians, regardless of party affiliation, are elected with police union support. This isn’t a blue or red issue but an issue with that level of government and, arguably, a voter engagement issue.Report
Cops are still popular, particularly among Real Americans.Report
It’s mostly a Blue issue because the Blues both created the gov unions and they’re running the medium to large cities, which by definition also have the larger unions.
RE: a voter engagement issue.
Yes, that. That exactly. However it unrealistic to expect constant voter engagement on this specific issue to counter balance an always-engaged union that only exists to create abuses.Report
You may want to look into your union history. Police unions mainly arose in the 60’s and 70’s as a backlash against the civil rights era phenomena of police getting their hands slapped for roughing up civil rights protestors. The cities instituted limits on police action and civilian review board, in response the police unionized. When the Reagan era response to the 70’s arrived the police unions were ready allies for the right.
Now police are very much a blue problem because Democratic aligned politicians are the only ones urban voters trust to run their cities (which isn’t surprising since the right makes no bones about how much they despise cities). If the Dems ever got in gear to abolish police unions I think you’d be surprised how little support the police unions would get from the rest of the union movement. Police unions are very different in origin and culture from even other public service unions.Report
They don’t even have to be good. Black crime is the boogeyman that can get trotted out every time someone gears up an effort.Report
If we’re talking about Jacob Blake, then Kenosha Wisconsin is a Blue City with the Major and City Council all members of Team Blue.
If other members of Team Blue weren’t stopping them, they could implement police reform.
Now that assumes “police reform” ends this “seriously focusing on the worst police interaction with a member of group X” that we’re doing.Report
I think the problem lies with cities giving away the store in police contracts. A lot of the stuff people complain about is a working conditions issue in the contracts, and now it’s so entrenched it’ll be nearly impossible to get rid of, short of nuking the unions.Report
If Union support elected the Mayor, then why shouldn’t he “give away the store”?
And if it was the previous Mayor who did that, why should the current Mayor go to war over the contract when he has other priorities?
And if a previous Mayor gave away the store and the new Mayor needs to prove he’s pro-union, what does he give away?
Unionism in this situation is like the force of gravity. It can be opposed only by determined effort and the moment that effort goes away it’s there.
We can nuke the union or we can live with the force of gravity insisting that cops shouldn’t be held accountable.Report
Count me in the nuke column.Report
This should help light the fuse:
CNN’s Jake Tapper: Why aren’t national police unions ‘speaking out on behalf’ of Capitol cops?
https://www.rawstory.com/where-is–fraternal-order-police/Report
I’m not sure they have a dog in the race. Police rights/impunity weren’t under attack here. It’s like asking why the union doesn’t come out as pro-choice if cops get injured by abortion protesters.Report
They absolutely have a dog in this fight.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fraternal-order-of-police-was-the-biggest-loudest-cop-union-in-america-but-michael-fanone-felt-abandoned?source=articles&via=rss
A January 2020 post from the FOP features commentary about a video of an officer in Baltimore attempting to subdue a subject on the ground while a group of onlookers kick at the officer and demand he get off the man’s neck. The FOP wrote that the officer was “conducting his lawful duty” while the “degenerate dirtbags” surrounded, kicked, and assaulted him before a laughing crowd. “Not a single person watching attempts to help the officer being assaulted and to add insult to injury, they film the entire encounter,” the union wrote.
An August 2020 FOP post at the height of George Floyd protests called out the “vile and disgusting mob” and linked to an officer allegedly being hit by a brick. “Criminals have seized the opportunity to terrorize our communities. It is well past time for this lawlessness to end!”
An October 2020 post highlighted a California man seen on video appearing to steal a gun from an officer and allegedly firing a shot in their direction. In response, the FOP called out the “#DefundThePolice mob & their disgusting anti-police rhetoric” to explain why officers were being ambushed and attacked.
Somehow, it is only this protest, and these protesters that they remain strangely and uncharacteristically silent.Report
The police union thinks anti-police impunity groups are horrible and tries to brand them as anarchists/terrorists?
If you’re wondering why every group isn’t painted like that, then you should re-read that sentence. So no, it’s not “only this protest”.
Maybe not on a side note, the number of cops killed by rioters was zero. Wiki says the dead cop died from natural causes and not from being beaten to death by the protesters like was originally reported.Report
https://apnews.com/article/jan-6-capitol-riot-hearing-aquilino-gonell-michael-fanone-96fd6e07e1d2700417575880df2fde69
Plenty of anti-police behavior recounted here.
And, as a side note to your side note, I don’t recall a police death during the Floyd (police) riots of last summer.Report
https://news.wttw.com/2021/07/27/chicago-police-defend-use-gang-database-more-2-years-after-watchdog-called-it-deeply
More Chicago City Council inaction.Report
At a bare minimum they could be as violent and frequent as the BLM protests. At the maximum we’d have a military coup to “ensure a fair election without the recent problems”.
There’s a lot of space between those two extremes and we’re not even at minimum.
Oh, the retoric and fanasies we’re already seeing are ringing alarm bells.
However, keep in mind the level of violence and disruption that Team Blue lives with because BLM doesn’t believe statistics and cherry picks data to support their narrative. This is what it looks like when Team Red does that.
Thankfully, law enforcement seems to be taking Red’s riot seriously and the actual law breakers will probably all be tried. What to do about attractive but incorrect narratives is a problem.
Now also thankfully, Team Red’s narrative has an expiration date. Dispite what Trump has said, there is no way to undo Biden being President so the 2020 election is effectively over. As the years go on it will be more and more irrelevant. For that matter Trump himself is old, probably sick, and also can’t do this forever.Report
You’re talking as if Dark Matter has set up an unfalsifiable, but you also say that the mere lack of evidence is no argument against your position.Report