 And welcome to Think Tech Hawaii on Thursday, August the 12th, 2021. You're watching Think Tech's show, America Finding Its Way. I'm your host today, and I'm Stephanie Stoll Dalton. Our show topic today is to review proceedings of the House Select Committee investigation into the January 6 attack on the capital, otherwise known as the insurrection. The committee chair, Benny Thompson, has the level says he has the level of power he needs and is backed up by the Speaker Pelosi. And he says he has absolutely no reluctance to issue any subpoenas. Of course, we're still waiting to hear what those subpoenas are. But I don't think we should be that hard on him. It is just the third week. He's had an assist lately from the DOJ, or the whole procedures had an assist from the DOJ for disallowing officials from using executive privilege to testify when he does send out those subpoenas. Very risky business to find out what the next line of defense is, of course, in that situation. But this week for the committee, there are several public announcements, news from the committee, but no meeting occurred. Actually, we haven't had a meeting since the first meeting. As far as I know, although there may be something going on, surely it's going on behind the curtains. However, the news and opinions about the committee membership charge, it's charge and its scope continue in the news as you're probably reading. So to continue the discussion here on think tech, we have assembled several informed think tech guests today to comment on the developments and the promises and the challenges of the committee, which is to get the facts from ignition of this event. At the capital to the last minute of the January insurrection. So I want to welcome our panel of J. Fidel. And Tim Apachello. So welcome to this. This show. On this panel. So I have a question about how the one, six committee news for this week. And the announcement of the two new members. I, these were, were touted and praised and approved by the speaker Nancy Pelosi. And they include. Another Republican, which is of course the former Virginia Republican congressman. Denver Riggleman. As a senior staff member. As a senior staff member on the committee. And also the second person that has been approved on the, or placed on the committee is a civil servant named Joe. Joe. Matt. Mayor. Who's principal deputy general council at the department of Homeland security. And he was recommended by Liz Cheney. So, and he, what he, and he has joined the committee. So as, as you may know, there are some issues with these two, but first of all. This adds what one and a half more Republicans to the committee. And is this a good thing, J. I don't know how it depends on how Republican they are. If they're in lockstep with the other Republicans, it's going to be a problem. You know, you said that. You know, it's been going on for three weeks and we have. My recollection and you guys can add more, but. So, so they had this public meeting with the. Four. Policemen from the capital police. Actually, one was from the DC police, I think. And that was, you know, raw meat kind of hearing very emotional whatnot. And that was like three weeks ago. And then more recently, and I think it was over the weekend in a closed session. They had this revelationary stuff about Jeff Rosen and. And Jeffrey Clark in the DOJ. Which suggested that, you know, Trump, Trump was trying to do an always possible a coup. On the election. And that was interesting. I think that was a good word from. People who were there. Lumen Thall came public on it, but there were others who, who spoke under anonymity. To talk about the evidence that was reduced. In that over the weekend hearing. But I think that's pretty much all we know about it. And you know, if you ask me whether it's moving fast enough. The answer has to be no. It's not moving fast enough. It's getting caught up. There are other distractions going on. It's losing primacy on the front page. After a while, people can say, I don't care anymore. You know, if we're looking to make the wrong right. If we're looking to find responsibility. We're not doing it fast enough. This should be moving at breakneck speed. And it's simply not. And soon enough we'll be in, you know, the summer doldrums here and soon enough will be in the fall. Other things will happen. We have other fish to fry. And this, this, this committee is going to fall by the wayside. And the report won't come out for a long time. So I mean, they're playing to the press obviously on, on two significant developments in the committee. But we need so much more than that. It's going to run out of steam. Well, I think that you're right on point here because in addition to the issue you bring up, which is that we're not seeing them meeting and we're not seeing their progress and their activity. The speaker Pelosi gave an approval. For an expanded timeline for the committee to do all that it takes to, to get the facts about what happened minute by minute. She actually dismissed concerns that, that were made very plain for whatever political backlash will surge if this committee drags out and loses its momentum. So it's, it, it's a question as to, and she backed out and dismissed and didn't deal with that. So what do you think that, that's going to portend for what's coming up to him? Because it's likely. Well, I shared Jay's concern about it protracted, you know, the attention span of the society is so, so much been truncated and, and shortened. I mean, we have the attention span of a nap to keep our interest. And once our interest goes away and wanes, wanes down, then, you know, whatever they're investigating becomes insufficient. Let's move on to the next big story. And that's true with the media. That's true with almost everything we encounter now. It's just, we move too fast and nothing holds our attention. I differ from Jay from my opinion is that, and I use a sports baseball analogy is that, you know, you're in the first inning and your second to bat hits a home run. And who is the home run battered? Well, that's Jeffrey Rosen and seven hour testimony that really shined a light on the relentless influence of Donald Trump to the Department of Justice. And if that doesn't really speak in volumes of his participation to undermine this election, in addition to his conversations, recorded conversations to the Secretary of State of Georgia about looking for 11,780 votes. In addition to all the other machinations of Donald Trump to spur the January 6th invasion and insurrection. So you put all the pieces of the puzzle, puzzle together and the picture is starting to look pretty good of Donald Trump's involvement. I've overtly trying to undermine the, the election. And I think just Jeffrey Rosen's testimony was a big part of that and we'll find out more and yeah, Jay, you're right. It will take more time. But right now you've got a pretty good stool, three legged stool on this. And the facts are starting to emerge. And I think that will hold the attention of the American public. And even though now it's going to take a little bit more time to get more, more, more information. Well, that was to the Judiciary Committee. So those are the, that's where the seven hour testimony went. And of course the, the concern Jay, coming on this is that he said nothing. This was all going on, you know, months and months ago. This was one of the last gasps. I mean, not one of the last, not one of the final efforts of the past president to be nonviolent about overturning the government. And weaponizing this DOJ to represent his best interests, which would be to return over the election. So why is it that it took Rosen so long to get. His man, his man up to do his duty. I mean, there's a number of questions that, that dropped out of that. Why wasn't the Judiciary Committee and not the, not the select committee. How is this strange that we have now parallel investigations going on within the house itself. You know, and then we have, you know, this, this strange phenomenon of the ins, inspected general of the Department of Justice. He has an investigation going on. Presumably for a while. We haven't heard anything about that. And I don't know that the inspected general is supposed to be independent, you know, within the department. Why is it the department doing its own investigation? What is wrong with Merrick Garland that he is, you know, let this fall. Is he looking for political cover cover against what? He should be cleaning house. We're not sure that he has cleaned house and it's been eight months. You know, there's something, something wrong with that. And finally, let me point out that although it's revolutionary that we find out about Rosen and Clark. You know, what about how this insurrection got started. This is an examination in the house select committee into the insurrection. Sure, it's relevant what Trump was doing, you know, the days and weeks before, and how he was trying to do a coup. Okay, a coup. That's okay. That's interesting. But what about the insurrection itself. They should be looking into how it came together. They should be looking into the strange machinations of the Republican Party and a number of Republican legislators who I mean, I believe in my heart were directly involved in the insurrection. We haven't heard about that. And I think, you know, essentially, if you subtract and you're right to do that, Stephanie, if you subtract the affair with Rosen and Clark, which is late, way late, those guys didn't, Rosen did not reveal this for eight months. We never heard from him. And that means that the, the judiciary committee investigation, which going on at the same time as the select committee investigation. You know, is, is like eclipsing the select committee, which is what he has had, as you pointed out, one hearing and that was weeks and weeks ago. We need to get to the bottom of how this started. And you know, the truth of it is, and I, you know, I firmly believe this as a former investigator, a federal investigator. I firmly believe that the more time that goes by, it's not rocket science, the less, you know, access you have to probative evidence. So I don't know what they're doing or what their staff is doing or what their new members are doing. And I'm not, I'm not made more confident by the silence. I want to see them move along before you know, it'll be the end of the year. We won't have a report, as I said before, and it will pass off the radar. And you know what, this discussion here among the three of us also suggests to me that this committee will make itself irrelevant by the delay. The Senate Judiciary Committee will be more relevant. The inspector general will be more relevant. The newspaper maybe will be more relevant. They really covered that thing with Rosen and Clark very well. A number of newspapers around the country, including newspapers really strident articles appeared in the Georgia newspapers. So, you know, what I'm saying is this committee has got to work to make itself relevant and interesting and probative and give us a result before it's old hat. Yeah. So well, let's just talk about this timeline then. Because one thing I heard on cable news was a discussion about what had seemed weird to me or interesting to me was during the presidential debate, the last debate, if you recall that they came, Biden and Trump got into a pretty close discussion and Biden challenged him to talk and give some guidance to all these supporters of his. And he said, yes, yes, I'll do that. And so he did it. And he said to the Proud Boys, do you recall what he said to him to the Proud Boys? What did he say? And stand back, stand ready, something like that. Basically it was, it was, it was, it was, it was a message to them that be prepared, be prepared to act. And to me, exactly, because what he was supposed to be doing, and my interpretation of it, see if you agree, was to disperse, disperse deceased. Wasn't that, did you feel like that was what he was asked to do it by the moderator and by Biden? Yeah. He was a joke. No, he basically put them up back. He actually by mentioning and by name, gave them more energy and synergy to be prepared to do what they eventually did. And that was, you know, on the capital invasion. So yeah, he charged them up by just mentioning them in, in the debate. So that seems a long time ago, right? Presidential debates. But I, I, that just rings a bell as the inciting incident sort of. Okay. Let's go back. Let's go back three years ago. Right. He was doing dog whistles from the. Yeah, let's go to about their good people on both sides. I mean, that was the real one. Yeah, yeah. Well, then, so the, so all of this discussion, then, you know, then it moved. So if we look at that as the dog whistle, certainly, but kind of like getting everybody ready for what, you know, Wiley Trump expects to happen and then too bad. I mean, I think it was, it did for him, what made him do all these things. But as his, what was his strategy going along as you look at the events, the leavers, the tactics he used after, and that he was prepared to use by the time of the election. And then losing the election. And including what Jay and you were talking about with. He did. All of these non violent, but politically coercive and destructive things, but all of them nonviolent until he got to the end in his last option was then to go violent. Do you see that, Tim? You're, you're shaking your head. No, I think he's set the stage for violence again. Remember, he was talking about who his supporters were the Bikers and they're a mean bunch, a tough bunch. and they're a mean bunch, a tough bunch, he was slowly lighting the fuse for violence and he was preparing them with a wink and a nod and we could call it a dog whistle. Some people say it was a bullhorn. I think it was somewhere in between, but by giving a wink and a nod to his tough bikers and all these loyal supporters of Trump, he was preparing them and they were taking the bait and they were taking the hint and they became more prepared for violence and they're planning for some event that they weren't quite sure what it would be yet. But remember that was years ago that he was using that kind of language to incite them. So there's argument, a pining out there in the news that that is why the scope of the 1.6 commission should be extended across the biggest landscape. Because all of this is important to know from its outset in years ago, things that we're going, all of this is under the scope of the committee. What do you think, Jay? Is that too far reach or what do you think? I think Nancy Pelosi or to coordinate this instead of having multiple investigations going on, each one of them loses steam by having other competing investigations. I would support that. They should find out all the communications that were going on. It's not just a dog whistle things either. It's the instructions he gave to Rosen and Clark and the U.S. Attorney General in Georgia, all these affirmative things he was doing. And I think if you connect the dots and all those affirmative things, as Tim says, he's setting up an insurrection. And I don't think we know half of it yet though. I think he must have been, it was not just that he's reading the Twitter feed on the oath keepers. He was probably talking to them or having proxies talk to them. I'm sure that when you get down to it, Trump was directly involved or either directly or through close proxies in motivating these people and helping them organize and paid afraid of getting buses to come to Washington, of setting the standards for what they were gonna do in Washington. So that's what we have to find out. And if expanding the role of the committee, which I think that's the committee's job to do that, they really have an open channel on this, then fine, let's find out what Trump was saying, doing, communicating all through that period. But I wanna know about the Republican legislators. I wanna know about their connections with the oath keepers and all those groups. I wanna know about policemen, firemen, lawyers, everybody who was involved, who had a government role. I'm sure there were active military there. I wanna know about that. And don't forget that the FBI is also doing its investigation by investigating now 570 people, they arrested and many more, I'm sure that they are learning about from the ones they arrested. So what's the story there? And how is that feeding back to Merrick Garland? How is it feeding back to the congressional committees, both of them, that are investigating this? We need to know and if you tell me guys that the FBI is all secret about this and what they are learning from their 570 plus arrestees and they're not sharing that with the committee, I will be very, very disappointed in them and in the Department of Justice. Yeah. Well, I wanted to mention that I've read other analogies about what has happened to like the sowing, the seeds have been sown for this insurrection and anarchy and that it is as bad as, well, it's domestic terrorism. It's being labeled as domestic terrorism and the seeds have been sown for that. And so, and also compared actually to ISIS and the way ISIS operates, although there was a discussion with the Sinn Fein group in the Northern Island, they say maybe it's actually more like that. But Tim, how does that strike you to have that kind of domestic terrorism described as boiling, thriving here in our US? Well, I think that's why Think Tech has your show, my show. And we've been talking about for three years is the alarm bells of breaching our democracy and the institutions that hold our democracy together was evident the day Donald Trump took the oath of office. And I think we all kind of took note of it and committed to do what we could and say what we can say to do our part, our small part on this very thing that we have a domestic insurrection and it didn't start on January 6th by no means. It really started on the day Donald Trump took office because he was undermining our institutions. And that will continue if we allow it. So that is the importance of this steering committee and its report is a signpost for the future as a deterrent to keep the Donald Trumps of the future out of this sort of thing. I would just mention one other thing is that we don't, that steering committee does not want or select committee does not want to go in the path of the Mueller investigation and subsequent first impeachment. You know, I'll use the analogy that attorneys make when they do a week long worth of discovery, but what wins the day is maybe 20 minutes of direct testimony. You could get so much evidence that it gets lost in the minutia and it gets lost in the details and you've lost the big picture. So a good attorney knows how to take a mountain of evidence and pare it down to what is really effective and is going to win the day. Not only for the, you know, any potential criminal filings but for the public to understand and for them to get it, to synthesize a mountain of information and make sure it's not a mountain of information. Let me add two things out of what Tim said. Number one is we've got to prevent this from happening again and that is a primary purpose of any investigation here because the roots of it are still there and they have to be pulled out or it will happen again. We keep hearing from the FBI no less that, you know, there are all these noises on the foot about that it will be happening again. Your question, you know, implies and states that Stephanie that there's something going on here where people are planning to do it again and this committee is key to stopping it from doing it again. And let me add one other point that came out of what Tim said, you know, we keep hearing about subpoenas and I totally agree. It's like an iceberg. Jay, actually I was going to go to these questions that just came in about the subpoena. Can I do that with you, please? Let me just finish my point. The subpoenas have been mentioned always in the future tense. If the subpoenas involve high profile organizations or people, we would have heard about them. We have not heard about them. The committee has not indicated that it has actually issued the first subpoena yet. I don't know what's holding them up. Tim's point is very good in the sense that, you know, it's like an iceberg. Seven eighths of it are documents under the surface and only one eighth of it is people appearing. So far, the seven eighths haven't been handled as far as we know. This is troubling. They're moving too slowly. Sorry. Well, what effect do you think, this is a viewer's question, what effect do you think no executive privilege will have on the subpoenas? I don't think it's executive privilege here. I think there's been a ruling to that effect. Well, it says- Which means those guys will have to appear and they'll have to talk about what happened. This is not privileged. But they can take the Fifth Amendment, right? They can protect them. They can take the Fifth Amendment. And that will be an extraordinary event for the country, for people who are not talking about privilege or well, not talking about privilege to take the Fifth Amendment. I'd like to jump in on that point because in the past, during the Miller investigation, subpoenas were issued and they just said, well, I'm not going to appear because I'll just evoke my Fifth Amendment right. And for whatever reason, that was acceptable. And in my mind, no, you have the right to evoke your Fifth Amendment rights, but you're going to do so in front of the cameras in front of Congress and in front of the committee. And so you don't just get to sit back in your offices and go, I'm not showing up. No, as I said a couple of weeks ago, you put your acolyte in that seat in front of Congress and then you evoke your Fifth Amendment and then everyone gets to see you do that. And then they get to ask, why is he doing that? Yeah. Now remember, once you evoke your Fifth Amendment, you can be offered immunity, impossible charges, and then you have to testify even though you evoked the Fifth Amendment. And that should happen with some of these people anyway. Okay, but with about a minute left, there's a second question for both of you. We'll start with Jay and finish with Tim, but who do you think they should subpoena? Please be specific from the point of view. There's two general areas. One is everybody in the White House around Trump who might have been involved in this. The second area would be, people in the Department of Justice, we already know a bunch of them. And they've testified already, I'm not sure, but there are others who could have should have would have who knew about it, who can give us information, even staffers, but those are the two general areas. I can't think of any other area, but other areas would be identified once you get into the primary areas. So, Tim, what do you have to say about that question or on security? Well, depending on the area, how about Donald Trump? It's breaking him in. Exactly. And how about members of Congress? How about members of Congress? I want members. And how about all those Oathkeeper guys who were there? I'd like the committee to take a whack at them. Yeah, I agree, Jay, I want members of Congress in front of, I want their colleagues in the chairs as well. And if they want to invoke the fifth, more power to them, but gosh darn it, they've got a story to tell. Some of them do. I could think of a few of them right now. And this committee cannot let them blow off subpoenas. If they don't want to come down, they'll let them let the Marshall bring them down. Correct. The brass and the Pentagon, how about those folks? The generals and admirals. Sure. We need to know what happened. And, you know, there were, there's strange plays going on in the afternoon of January 6th. We need to know every single thing that happened. The press didn't get it all yet. We need to get it all. No, and that's the intent. They've stated that mission. So we want to watch and see that they get there. Well, it's Aloha time for us, and we'll need to wrap up. So thanks to Tim Apachello and to Jay Fidale for this critical conversation, which is very interesting. So I'm Stephanie Stoll Dalton, hosting for America Finding It's Way. We'll see you next week, same day, same time. And Mahalo for your participation. Thank you everyone.