June 29, 2022

Welcome to Byron York's Daily Memo newsletter.

Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here to receive the newsletter.

THE DEMOCRATS' DEEPLY FLAWED JAN. 6 SHOW. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's one-sided Jan. 6 committee had its greatest hit Tuesday — and also revealed its greatest weakness.

Democrats sold the hearing as an urgent matter. It had not been on the schedule, but committee leaders hastily announced the surprise session "to present recently obtained evidence." They did not say what that "recently obtained" evidence was. We still don't know for sure. The hearing featured Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows who, as committee Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney (R-WY) said, had "already sat for four videotaped interviews with committee investigators."

The two big headlines from Hutchinson's testimony were that former President Donald Trump "sought to lead armed mob to Capitol," as the Washington Post put it, or "urged armed supporters to Capitol," as the New York Times put it. The other headline was that Hutchinson portrayed an out-of-control Trump so determined to go to the Capitol with his armed mob that he physically attacked a Secret Service official who told him that no, there was not enough security for the president to just drive down to the Capitol and cheer on his supporters with no advance preparation.

Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what's going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!

Remember that we already knew Trump exercised atrocious judgment on Jan. 6. He had whipped up the crowd with his speech at the White House Ellipse, and with several tweets and statements in the preceding days, and was happy to see them march on the Capitol. When a relatively small number of people who attended his rally ended up in an ugly hand-to-hand battle with the Capitol Police, Trump was happy to see his supporters fighting on his behalf. He had to be pressured into calling them off — and then only hours after the violence began.

So what did Hutchinson add to that picture? Details that make a story. An unhinged Trump lunging at a Secret Service agent. An unhinged Trump throwing his lunch plate at a wall, leaving ketchup dripping down it. An unhinged Trump demanding that supporters armed with AR-15 rifles, handguns, and big flagpoles that acted as spears be admitted to his rally because, as Hutchinson quoted Trump, "they're not here to hurt me."

In the morning before Trump's Ellipse speech, Hutchinson said she talked with Tony Ornato, who was the White House deputy chief of staff for operations. She said Ornato told her and chief of staff Meadows that the crowd was armed. "I remember Tony mentioning knives, guns in the form of pistols and rifles, bear spray, body armor, spears, and flagpoles," Hutchinson said. Cheney added that the Secret Service had confiscated "weapons and ... pepper spray, knives, brass knuckles, tasers, body armor, gas masks, batons, blunt weapons." Cheney added: "Those were just from the people who chose to go through the security [magnetometers] for the president's event on the Ellipse, not the several thousand members of the crowd who refused to go through the mags and watched from the lawn near the Washington Monument."

What some observers called the "smoking gun" of the hearing was this: Trump, Hutchinson testified, knew the crowd was armed and still wanted them to come to his rally. He wanted the Secret Service to shut down the magnetometers and just let everybody in. The president said "something to the effect of take the effing mags away," Hutchinson testified. "They're not here to hurt me. Let them in. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol after the rallies are over. They can march from — they can march from the Ellipse. Take the effing mags away. Then they can march to the Capitol."

Thus the headlines: Trump sought to lead an armed crowd to Capitol. He wanted the Secret Service to shut down security so his supporters could keep their arms in order to attack the Capitol.

But why, in fact, did Trump want to shut down security? The answer was in the testimony. Trump wanted to shut down security for the most Trumpian of reasons: He wanted the crowd to be bigger. The rally space wasn't full that morning. Trump — and this was classic Trump — worried that photos would show he had not attracted a sellout crowd. So he ordered agents to let everybody in. "He was very concerned about the shot, meaning the photograph that we would get, because the rally space wasn't full," Hutchinson testified. "He wanted it to be full and for people to not feel excluded because they had come far to watch him at the rally. And he felt the mags were at fault for not letting everybody in." Trump wanted a full house. Trump always wants a full house. And then he wants to tell the crowd that thousands are waiting outside, unable to get in because the house is full. That's what Trump does.

Also — how armed was the crowd? Recent reports say the Justice Department has charged 874 people so far in the Capitol riot investigation. A relatively small number of them have been charged with weapons-related offenses. And a tiny subset has been charged with firearms-related offenses. Last October, when about 750 people had been charged, I looked through every case of weapons-related offenses. Some rioters were charged with using flagpoles as weapons, with using shields as weapons, with using helmets as weapons — one rioter was charged with using a skateboard as a weapon, and another was charged with using a desk drawer as a weapon.

As far as guns were concerned, though, only five people out of around 750 suspects at the time were charged with possessing a firearm. One of them was not even in Washington when the riot occurred. And none were charged with using a firearm. As we know, no rioter discharged a firearm at any time during the riot, even when the hand-to-hand combat, with rioters attacking the police, became very intense. Many of the weapons in the weapons charges were improvised, which does not suggest that those rioters came intent on armed violence.

Hutchinson's other big hit was her testimony that, leaving his rally, a frantic Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the presidential SUV to direct it toward the Capitol and then tried to throttle Robert Engel, the Secret Service agent who stopped him.

That story got a little cloudy after Hutchinson's testimony, when a number of news organizations reported that sources close to the Secret Service denied that the physical conflict ever occurred. Those sources said Engel and Ornato were prepared to testify that it did not happen. "A source close to the Secret Service says both men dispute Trump grabbed the steering wheel or assaulted an agent," NBC's Peter Alexander tweeted. "They do not deny that Trump was irate and demanded they drive to Capitol." The Washington Post's Carol Leonnig tweeted: "Sources tell me: Secret Service agents dispute that Donald Trump assaulted any agent or tried to grab the steering wheel on Jan. 6. They agree Trump was furious about not being able to go to Capitol with his supporters. They offer to testify under oath."

Here's the baffling part. A Secret Service spokesperson told Alexander that agents who were inside Trump's SUV are "available to testify under oath, responding to [Hutchinson's] new allegations." Her new allegations? Remember that Hutchinson, by Cheney's account, had spoken to the committee four times before Tuesday. Did she just now come up with the dramatic story of Trump trying to wrest the wheel of the SUV from the Secret Service? Did she withhold it until now? Usually, congressional committees don't like that sort of thing.

And then there's this: Engel, at least, has already spoken to the Jan. 6 committee. Just three weeks ago, Politico reported that Engel told the committee that in the SUV, he and Trump "discussed Trump's desire to go to the Capitol and took different views on the topic." Reporter Betsy Woodruff Swan noted that a Secret Service spokesperson said the Secret Service has "fully cooperated with the congressional January 6 probe" and that "Secret Service personnel appeared before the select panel without having to be subpoenaed."

At the hearing Tuesday, neither Cheney nor any other member of the Jan. 6 committee mentioned that Engel had already spoken to the committee. Indeed, even a casual listener would have heard Hutchinson's story and thought: I wonder what the Secret Service guys who were in the car have to say about this. Wouldn't it be a good thing to hear their versions of events? But the committee already had their versions of the events and did not tell the public about it.

That does not mean Hutchinson is lying. It just means that her testimony was not subject to the kind of basic scrutiny that witnesses receive in a normal congressional investigation. In a normal investigation, there is an opposition party to ask questions. There is an opposition party to note when the majority is trying to hide something. There is an opposition party to compare what one witness has said to what another witness has said. There is, in other words, an adversarial system that is essential to fact-finding. And the Jan. 6 committee, with all its members, including two Republicans appointed by Pelosi and all in lockstep on the questions at hand, does not have that essential system.

But no matter. Many in the press simply loved the show. And what a show it was! Credulous reporters swooned at the committee's presentation — so unlike other, boring committee hearings. They knew they were being manipulated — and they liked it.

Axios's Mike Allen noted that the committee's media consultant, former ABC News President James Goldston, "has been producing each hearing as if it were a '20/20' episode — raw enough to be credible, but scripted enough to sell the story in the allotted time." Allen marveled at the committee's "'deep teases,' as TV news calls it — hinting at future testimony and leaving the audience wanting more. Yesterday's barnburner ended with a cliffhanger." So far, Allen concluded, the committee has "orchestrated a riveting six episodes — with the season finale still to come."

Well, how about that. By the way, the "cliffhanger" to which Allen referred was Cheney's tease about possible witness tampering. Moments before the hearing ended, Cheney read a couple of anonymous quotes that suggested somebody in Trumpworld had tried to intimidate witnesses. It was a self-evidently serious allegation. But there were no identities, no details, no context, no story. Cheney then signed off with a tease saying, in effect, that everyone should tune in for the next exciting episode.

A cliffhanger! A barnburner! What a show! Jan. 6 was a serious event. The actions of Trump, along with the actions of the portion of the crowd that attacked the Capitol — the rioters — deserve serious, balanced scrutiny. They're not getting it from the one-sided Jan. 6 committee.

For a deeper dive into many of the topics covered in the Daily Memo, please listen to my podcast, The Byron York Show — available on the Ricochet Audio Network and everywhere else podcasts can be found. You can use this link to subscribe.