The Capitol riot hearings are designed to shape contemporary American politics, but will they make a difference? - The Globe and Mail | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

The Capitol riot hearings are designed to shape contemporary American politics, but will they make a difference? – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on


A video of former White House Senior Advisor Jared Kushner speaking is shown on a screen as the House select committee tasked with investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol hold a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 13.JABIN BOTSFORD/AFP/Getty Images

The United States is engaged in a consequential large-scale clinical test: What exactly is the country’s attention span for a vital matter in its civic life, one freighted with critical, stunning revelations that go to the heart of its political culture?

In the early years of the Republic, Americans were accustomed to lengthy declamations. Daniel Webster’s famous 1830 speech about the sanctity of the Union went on for two days, and about 15,000 people stood for two hours in 1863 to hear Edward Everett give an oration that in essence was an introduction to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

Both occurred at dangerous moments when the character of the country was in jeopardy. So, too, is this moment, when the essential element of its political life – the peaceful transfer of power, a trademark aspect of American democracy since the Democratic-Republican candidate Thomas Jefferson succeeded the Federalist John Adams in 1801 – is facing its most formidable test.

Which is why the congressional committee examining the Jan. 6, 2021, rampage on Capitol Hill has scheduled at least four more sessions to follow last week’s prime-time hearing and Monday’s marathon session.

These sessions are in part for the historical record. But they also are designed to shape contemporary American politics, which hinge on questions about the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s presidency and the future political prospects of his predecessor, Donald Trump, who may be preparing an effort to regain the White House in 2024. And like the episode they are designed to examine, these sessions prompt questions of great significance, among them: How many hearings are necessary? Will they make a difference?

“We have a population with a relatively short attention span,” said Mark Satta, a professor of philosophy at Wayne State University in Detroit who is studying the hearings. “It’s hard to know what will get something to stick in people’s mind. One advantage of doing multiple events is to give the committee a chance to provide lots of different chances to have a tide-turning moment. It could come in the fifth hearing.”

Monday’s session included several striking revelations: Former attorney-general William Barr, the country’s chief law-enforcement official, said that Mr. Trump claimed there was fraud on election night as soon as it became apparent he could lose; that the claim was “crazy stuff” that did a “great disservice to the country”; and that the president was “detached from reality.”

Moreover, Trump adviser Eric Herschmann said that he “never saw any evidence whatsoever to sustain’’ the allegations of a stolen election and that Mr. Trump’s effort to challenge Mr. Biden’s victory was “nuts.” Former mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani, a proponent of the stolen-election argument, was “definitively intoxicated” as the election returns were being reported, according to former senior Trump campaign lawyer Jason Miller. And the president defied campaign manager Bill Stepien’s counsel that it was “too early to call the race.’’

Mr. Stepien also testified that the effort to overturn the election was “not necessarily honest or professional.”

This testimony prompted Democratic Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, a member of the committee, to describe Mr. Trump’s action as “an attack on the American people by trying to rob you of your voice in American democracy.”

And while Mr. Trump went where no president has gone before, these hearings are prompting his opponents to say – perhaps with a plan in mind, perhaps hoping, as Shakespeare wrote in Henry IV, Part 2, that the wish might be the father to the thought – that prosecutors could put the former American chief executive in a situation where no president has been before: the target of a criminal lawsuit.

In line with the Shakespearean nature of this entire episode – the collision of fate and justice – those notions are met even among Mr. Trump’s most fervent critics, with warnings that such a prospect might inflame his supporters, render him a martyr to their cause and further empower him in a 2024 presidential campaign.

The hearings continue Wednesday morning, when the committee plans to show recorded testimony of Mr. Herschmann arguing that the only issue that remained after the election was, in his words, “orderly transition,” Further testimony is also expected from lesser-known figures.

Because it isn’t just the big fish who matter in the ecosystem of this episode. It is the krill and the algal blooms and the jellyfish and the minnows who count and who, in the broader biology of this political biosphere, may be just as important, as amplifiers of events or, perhaps, as sources of fresh evidence.

That was the lesson of the Watergate hearings, which consumed an entire summer and captivated the country, with the average American household watching about 30 hours of the hearings.

“The challenge is that January 6th is a story where it is very hard for the American people to assemble the pieces,” Garrett Graff, the author of Watergate: A New History, published in February, said in an interview. “Those pieces have come out drip by drip over 18 months. The opportunity for the hearing is to tell the story clearly and comprehensively so people can understand just how serious the events of Jan. 6 were and how close Donald Trump came to fomenting a coup. It’s a chance to put all this up on a national billboard.”

In video testimony aired on Monday, Donald Trump’s former Attorney-General William Barr bluntly dismissed claims of election fraud, saying in a Dec. 14, 2020 meeting ‘I was somewhat demoralized because I thought boy if he really believes this stuff he has… he’s become detached from reality.’

Reuters

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Gould calls Poilievre a ‘fraudster’ over his carbon price warning

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – Liberal House leader Karina Gould lambasted Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre as a “fraudster” this morning after he said the federal carbon price is going to cause a “nuclear winter.”

Gould was speaking just before the House of Commons is set to reopen following the summer break.

“What I heard yesterday from Mr. Poilievre was so over the top, so irresponsible, so immature, and something that only a fraudster would do,” she said from Parliament Hill.

On Sunday Poilievre said increasing the carbon price will cause a “nuclear winter,” painting a dystopian picture of people starving and freezing because they can’t afford food or heat due the carbon price.

He said the Liberals’ obsession with carbon pricing is “an existential threat to our economy and our way of life.”

The carbon price currently adds about 17.6 cents to every litre of gasoline, but that cost is offset by carbon rebates mailed to Canadians every three months. The Parliamentary Budget Office provided analysis that showed eight in 10 households receive more from the rebates than they pay in carbon pricing, though the office also warned that long-term economic effects could harm jobs and wage growth.

Gould accused Poilievre of ignoring the rebates, and refusing to tell Canadians how he would make life more affordable while battling climate change. The Liberals have also accused the Conservatives of dismissing the expertise of more than 200 economists who wrote a letter earlier this year describing the carbon price as the least expensive, most efficient way to lower emissions.

Poilievre is pushing for the other opposition parties to vote the government down and trigger what he calls a “carbon tax election.”

The recent decision by the NDP to break its political pact with the government makes an early election more likely, but there does not seem to be an interest from either the Bloc Québécois or the NDP to have it happen immediately.

Poilievre intends to bring a non-confidence motion against the government as early as this week but would likely need both the Bloc and NDP to support it.

Gould said she has no “crystal ball” over when or how often Poilievre might try to bring down the government

“I know that the end of the supply and confidence agreement makes things a bit different, but really all it does is returns us to a normal minority parliament,” she said. “And that means that we will work case-by-case, legislation-by-legislation with whichever party wants to work with us. I have already been in touch with all of the House leaders in the opposition parties and my job now is to make Parliament work for Canadians.”

She also insisted the government has listened to the concerns raised by Canadians, and received the message when the Liberals lost a Toronto byelection in June in seat the party had held since 1997.

“We certainly got the message from Toronto-St. Paul’s and have spent the summer reflecting on what that means and are coming back to Parliament, I think, very clearly focused on ensuring that Canadians are at the centre of everything that we do moving forward,” she said.

The Liberals are bracing, however, for the possibility of another blow Monday night, in a tight race to hold a Montreal seat in a byelection there. Voters in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun are casting ballots today to replace former justice minister David Lametti, who was removed from cabinet in 2023 and resigned as an MP in January.

The Conservatives and NDP are also in a tight race in Elmwood-Transcona, a Winnipeg seat that has mostly been held by the NDP over the last several decades.

There are several key bills making their way through the legislative process, including the online harms act and the NDP-endorsed pharmacare bill, which is currently in the Senate.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 16, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

NDP caving to Poilievre on carbon price, has no idea how to fight climate change: PM

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the NDP is caving to political pressure from Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre when it comes to their stance on the consumer carbon price.

Trudeau says he believes Jagmeet Singh and the NDP care about the environment, but it’s “increasingly obvious” that they have “no idea” what to do about climate change.

On Thursday, Singh said the NDP is working on a plan that wouldn’t put the burden of fighting climate change on the backs of workers, but wouldn’t say if that plan would include a consumer carbon price.

Singh’s noncommittal position comes as the NDP tries to frame itself as a credible alternative to the Conservatives in the next federal election.

Poilievre responded to that by releasing a video, pointing out that the NDP has voted time and again in favour of the Liberals’ carbon price.

British Columbia Premier David Eby also changed his tune on Thursday, promising that a re-elected NDP government would scrap the long-standing carbon tax and shift the burden to “big polluters,” if the federal government dropped its requirements.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 13, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Quebec consumer rights bill to regulate how merchants can ask for tips

Published

 on

 

Quebec wants to curb excessive tipping.

Simon Jolin-Barrette, minister responsible for consumer protection, has tabled a bill to force merchants to calculate tips based on the price before tax.

That means on a restaurant bill of $100, suggested tips would be calculated based on $100, not on $114.98 after provincial and federal sales taxes are added.

The bill would also increase the rebate offered to consumers when the price of an item at the cash register is higher than the shelf price, to $15 from $10.

And it would force grocery stores offering a discounted price for several items to clearly list the unit price as well.

Businesses would also have to indicate whether taxes will be added to the price of food products.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version