"Bad news" for Trump?

Today's Jan. 6 hearing qualifies

After listening to testimony Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Mark Meadows, presented to the January 6 Committee today, Donald Trump tweeted that Hutchinson is “bad news.” I agree that she’s bad news. For Trump.

Much will be made of Hutchinson’s testimony that Trump threw plates after hearing Bill Barr say the Department of Justice had no evidence of voting fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election. But this testimony will surprise only people (if any) who haven’t been paying attention to Trump.

More spectacularly, Hutchinson testified, based on what she says two eye-witnesses told her, that when the Secret Service refused to allow Trump to go to the Capitol with his supporters on January 6, the president tried to seize control of the car he was riding in. It’s my understanding that both eye-witnesses have been interviewed by the committee, so unless the committee has no regard for preserving Hutchinson’s credibility, it’s unlikely she was lying.

On the other hand, it’s not clear, given the nature of the vehicle, that the incident could have gone down the way she says she heard it. This is one reason why the committee shouldn’t have excluded Jim Jordan. Any fair observer would have wanted him to cross-examine Hutchinson on points like this one.

Presidents are used to being allowed to go where they please, so it’s understandable if Trump was irate at being told he couldn’t go to the Capitol. Still, if he acted as Hutchinson claims. his conduct was over-the-top.

Analytically, though, the significance of the testimony about the car is that Trump wanted to be part of the march on the Capitol. But that’s not surprising. Trump had told the crowd of his supporters he would march with them.

In my view, Hutchinson’s most important testimony was that Trump knew members of the mob were armed, but said he didn’t care because they didn’t want to harm him. If true, for Trump to rile up a mob when he knew it included armed members is a big deal, in my view.

It’s true that he told the mob to be “peaceful” — a fact the January 6 Committee steadfastly chooses to hide from the public. Maybe this will be enough to shield him from criminal liability. I don’t know. But from a moral standpoint, if Trump knew members of the crowd were armed and nonetheless riled them up as he did, his behavior on January 6 was all the more shameful.

Trump couldn’t know whether the crowd would heed his advice to be peaceful. And he knew, or should have known, that his rhetoric would reduce the likelihood that his ardent supporters would heed it.

Reports that members of the mob were armed should have alarmed Trump, as it did the security detail and some in his team. But according to Hutchinson, it didn’t alarm Trump because he knew the mob wasn’t a danger to him.

What alarmed Trump, she testified, was that those in the crowd who wanted to gather for his speech were being screened for weapons. This upset Trump because some people didn’t want to be screened and, consequently, the size of those assembled to hear him was diminished.

For Trump, “ratings” matter above all.

In Hutchinson’s account, if Trump had gotten his way, there would have been no screening for weapons. Thus, no one in the angry mob would have been disarmed before heading for the Capitol to try to prevent the election from being certified.

And, yes, if Trump had gotten his way, he would have been with the armed mob as it marched on the Capitol.

In that event, would Trump have tried to restrain the mob from attacking the Capitol police force and the Capitol building? We’ll never know.

However, other testimony from Hutchinson leads me to believe Trump would not have been a force for restraint. Hutchinson testified that the White House counsel pleaded with Trump to tell the mob to leave the Capitol. Counsel was particularly alarmed that the mob was chanting “hang Mike Pence.”

But far from trying to call the mob off during this key period of time, Trump tweeted that Pence lacked courage because he wouldn’t agree to stop certification of the election. The likely effect of this tweet on the crowd is obvious.

Indeed, according to Hutchinson, Meadows, who was with the White Counsel when the latter made his plea to Trump, told her the president agreed with the mob’s call for the hanging of Pence. She testified that when she asked Meadows how the president responded to the plea to call on the mob to leave the Capitol immediately,

Mark. . .responded something to the effect of, 'You heard him, Pat [the White House counsel]. He thinks Mike [Pence] deserves it. He doesn't think they're doing anything wrong.'

I’d love to hear what Meadows and the former White House counsel have to say about this. However, Meadows isn’t cooperating with the committee and the former counsel apparently has issues of privilege to deal with.

One final, and in my view potentially damning, tidbit came directly from Liz Cheney, not from Hutchinson’s testimony. Cheney posted two messages sent by someone in Trump’s camp to one (or more) of the committee’s witnesses whom Cheney didn’t identify. One of the messages was this:

What they said to me is, as I continue to be a team player, they know that I'm on the team, I'm doing the right thing, I'm protecting who I need to protect, you know, I'll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World.

And they have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts and just to keep that in mind as I proceeded through my depositions and interviews with the committee.

I expect we’ll hear more from the committee about this. The Department of Justice might also take an interest. Another case, perhaps, of the coverup being worse, or at least more legally jeopardizing, than the alleged crime.

The question commentators like to ask after these hearings is always, did it move the needle. My question is always, which needle.

If we’re talking about the 2022 election and/or Joe Biden’s standing with the public, I think the answer is “no” — this hearing will have virtually no effect. But if we’re talking about Donald Trump’s standing, I think the answer is different.

I believe the testimony today will adversely affect the way the public, including some Republicans, perceives Trump. This was also the view of Fox News’ Bret Baier and Mick Mulvaney after the day’s proceedings. And according to this report from CNN, some of Trump’s current advisers agree:

This is a bombshell. It’s stunning. It’s shocking. The story about ‘The Beast’ – I don’t have words. It’s just stunning,” said one Trump adviser, referring to the presidential limousine [Trump wanted to steer to the Capitol].

“This paints a picture of Trump completely unhinged and completely losing all control which, for his base, they think of him as someone who is in command at all times. This completely flies in the face of that,” the adviser added.

The Trump adviser, who was in a group text chat with several other Trump aides and allies as the hearing played out, said that “no one is taking this lightly.”

“For the first time since the hearings started, no one is dismissing this,” the adviser said.

The startling revelations from Hutchinson’s testimony about Trump’s erratic behavior and state of mind on January 6 could make it easier for Republican presidential hopefuls to challenge the former President in a primary should he run, the Trump ally added.

“This is basically a campaign commercial for (Florida Gov.) Ron DeSantis 2024,” said the Trump ally.

It’s true that the report is from CNN. And even if accurately quoted, the Trump adviser in question may be overreacting.

But until (1) Hutchinson’s testimony is discredited or (2) someone explains to me why Republican voters would want to nominate for president someone who behaved as she describes when strong GOP alternatives to Trump are available, I’m sticking to the view that today’s hearing was bad news for Trump. Perhaps very bad news.