 the January 6th findings reached the country. Here on American Issues, take two. Very important. And for this discussion, we have co-host Tim Apachello. We have Jeff Portnoy. He's a special guest today. We like him a lot. And Stephanie Stulldahl, a regular contributor here on American Issues, take two. We talked yesterday on take one. And we talked a little bit about this. We talked about what was going on in January 6th. So today, Tim and Stephanie and Jeff, I talk about whether it's reaching the country because there's some remarkable things coming out. So let me begin with you, Tim. It's clear that you're doing a great job, but is it having any effect? Well, let's also parlay that question as to who's it reaching, the message of the January 6th hearings. I did a little background work here. And in 1954, there was about 58 million Americans. And about 59% of those Americans were watching the Joseph McCarthy hearings. Then fast forward to the Watergate hearings. We had about 212 million Americans. And about 1.8% or 3 or 4 million people were watching the Watergate hearings. Not very many. Now go to the 1st, June 10th, January 6th hearing. And we had 20 million folks. But compare that to 310 million Americans. We're about 6.5% viewership. So I don't know if that gives me a trend or not. Probably not. But it probably is closer to Samuel Clemens lies, damn lies and statistics quotation. What's it say to us? I don't know. But it is reaching Americans. 6.5% is a significant number higher than the 1.8 in 1973. But who's watching it? Democrats, independents or the GOP? I'd have to say independents and Democrats. Well, yeah. I mean, is Fox News showing this? The people who watch Fox News give a rip about it? They feel it's all a witch hunt. Stephanie, do you think that there's a fair and balanced reporting between the left and the right here so it neutralizes itself? Well, I understand that the only, Fox is, I mean, Republicans are 10% of them are watching the January proceedings. And Fox is off and on about it. Anywhere you time you go to Fox, it's immigration, it's inflation, it's Hunter Biden, it's tech issues. I mean, they just continue to distract from it. But they're doing a little bit better. I haven't checked it this week or last week. I don't know that they're running the whole things. They didn't run the first one. And then they run the second one. So I don't know what they're continuing to do. But only about the percent of Republicans are watching it. So that's why your question is very good. Stephanie, let me refine the question, Jeff. Is it going to reach America, the electorate, by the time it needs to reach them? Because if it reaches them on a delayed basis, you know, five years down the road, that's nice for the historians. But it isn't nice for the election. The election is only a few months away. What do you think, Jeff? I think it's theater. I think it's had no impact on anyone other than folks who have already made up their mind. Maybe there's a very small percentage who have been influenced by it. I don't know the statistics. I don't know. I'm sure the polls will come out and say, you know, how many people watched all or part of the hearings and how many were from which political party? I mean, if it changed any minds, it changed very few. I think the Republicans have their own story and their own history. And nothing that's going to be done at these hearings is going to change their minds. I think the Democrats have their story and their history. The only thing in my view that may move the line is whether any indictments come out. That would be significant. But I don't think, I think it's a bunch of talking heads to be quite honest. If you watch MSNBC, you know what you're going to see about how they interpret the hearings. If you watch Fox, you know what they're going to say. If you watch CNN, you can pretty well guess what they're going to say. And, you know, I mean, for the panel, for the Democrats, it's, you know, it's good theater. But I don't think it's going to have much impact at all on the elections. You mentioned that the exception to that would be an indictment. Why? Because the people who don't want to hear about the Democratic point of view, they don't want to hear about indictments either. Why is that special? Well, I mean, theoretically, it removes it from partisan politics. It doesn't mean people will accept it that way. But it takes it out of a congressional hearing that's being led by Democrats with two renegade as they see it, Republicans. You know, I think, I think at least independence will say, hey, there might be something here with an indictment. And I think it will galvanize both sides if there is one. Now, if you're asking me whether I think there's going to be indictment, I do not. I don't think, you know, they keep saying there's a smoking gun. You know, it just depends how you interpret what Trump said. He certainly didn't say go storm the Capitol. He said things that the Democrats believe incited people to do that. And the Republicans say he was just exercising free speech. And so far, the Justice Department hasn't done anything that anyone can see. But who knows? I know. You do tell us. The Justice Department isn't doing anything, Jeff. I'm sorry to say. All right. There you go. Now, you know, you have all this information. You've been in court your whole professional life, and many of your cases have dealt with circumstantial evidence. So when let's when Trump says, let's have a wild time in Washington, can't a reasonable viewer person conclude that he's really doing a dog whistle on that? Isn't that a circumstantial evidence kind of question? You know, we're getting back to basic free speech. And is it is yelling fire in a crowded theater? That's really what it is. Let's take a phrase everyone's heard is what Trump said yelling fire in a crowded theater. Did he tell people? No, he's too smart. Did he tell people to go storm the Capitol, break the windows and try to hang Mike Pence? No. But did he say enough that people who wanted to interpret it the way they want to interpret it? The Proud Boys and all those other boogaloo's and yeah, did they hear the marching orders? Absolutely. I, you know, I don't think there's going to be any indictments, but it doesn't make what happened that day in Trump's involvement any less dramatic and serious as it relates to democracy. You've seen, you've heard, you've read, you know, what's been coming out on the committee hearing. And, you know, you're professional. So I put I put you on the I put you on the grand jury here, Jeff, or I put you on a penny jury. And I put all that evidence in front of you. Now, was he asking them to come and have an insurrection? Yes or no? No. I think what he was saying is he was asking them to protest the counting of the electoral college. Now, you know, you want to interpret that any way you want. Why don't you ask the other two who aren't lawyers and don't think like lawyers? Fortunately for them, I hope. You know, what they would think, because that's what's going to be on the jury, not, not people that have a legal background and are looking at it much more technically than the people who will sit in judgment. Okay, Tim, you're on the same jury with Jeff. You're sitting next to him as a matter of fact. Jeff didn't make the jury. Oh, yeah. I was, I was what's still allowed a preemptory challenge. No question. No question about it. Both sides. All right. Well, I had to answer it the following way. What evidence shows a state of mind that Donald Trump had when he was calling the secretary of Georgia or the secretaries of Arizona or Michigan? What was the state of mind for him to try to garnish 11,780 votes? What was the state of mind he was involved with when he was calling the DOJ and having Jeffrey Clark try to install him as his lackey so he can get a statement out of Jeffrey Clark that says, Hey, don't worry about this. There's fraud and leading the rest up to the Republican legislators. So I go to state of mind. But, but, but now I'll put my lawyer head on. What's the crime? I mean, what's the crime and making the phone call? Is it, yeah, I don't, I don't know what the, I don't know. Is it election tampering? Is it sedation? He didn't do any tampering. Well, he made a call and he said, find me, he made a call and said, find me 11,000 votes. Well, you know, I'm sorry, Jeff. You know, I don't know how plain that has to be, but maybe for some circles in this world, a little more plainer. Well, if we know while we're sitting on a jury, by the way, Stephanie, you're also on the jury. Okay. If we know the total, you know, circumstances, all the circumstances we've heard, you know, I mean, you know, I asked about what happened, you know, what was adduced in the, in the select committee, but you know, Tim is right, we should consider what's his name, Horschberger also and Georgia and some of the other things that, that the Teflon Don has done to sort of explain, make you understand the nature, the way he communicates his dog whistle way of communicating as a mafioso. So, so if I give you all those circumstances, Stephanie, and I say this, this now query is what came out in the January 6th committee. Does that show that he specifically intended to call them out for an insurrection? Yes or no? Well, I've been on a grand jury in D.C. And, you know, that attorney that's in there talking about these things is real important as to, you know, how he answers your questions and how he presents that information and how he brings in witnesses to discuss it. So, in addition to the grand jury people, you have that attorney doing whatever his, his agenda is. You can't say his. Or hers, yeah, yeah, they were both. And probably his hers and its were there. But, and then there's the witness coming in and doing their thing, right. So the grand jury sitting there trying to put this stuff together. But you know, I mean, I mean, certainly I know where I am on that. Unless I would hear some evidence or some, some description or interpretation of it that, that moved it away from obviously, you know, reaching out to, to, to make a difference. And the thing is that, why does it have to be four trucks so completely specific? It's just like there's no danger in that he, there's no threat to him based on that telephone call he made to the witness that Liz Cheney mentioned that told us about at the end of the last January committee presentation that because he called that witness, but that witness didn't answer the phone because the phone wasn't answered. That how do we know is Donald Trump got any, any, um, yeah, well, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. How is it witness tamper? There's no crime. He's not a defendant. But the legend, they're holding here. They have no, they don't have the same legal force and effect as a court. They don't like it that he made a call and tried allegedly to talk a witness into saying X, Y, or Z. So what? They have no legal power. They're a committee of Congress, which is putting on a show. I don't mean that in a bad way. So how's that witness tampering? If he was a defendant and he made the call, now we're talking about something different. Really? He's certainly a person of interest. He's certainly a potential defendant and he one of us is a potential defendant in something. You're too kind. No, look, you know, I don't want to be misunderstood here because, you know, people will start emailing me. I think Donald Trump is a horrible human being, has done tremendous damage to the country. Unfortunately, 30 to 40% of the people love him, like they love Gaddafi. And fortunately, we still have democracy. So we can have hearings like this. They wouldn't be having these hearings in the Soviet Union. But it is a huge leap to indict a former president of the United States and what it would mean for this country. You got to think that through if he's a criminal defendant for acts he committed as president, may have committed a lot of other things before he was president. He may have done things as a private citizen. So don't get me wrong. I'm about as anti-Trump as you can get. But I think we're talking about a huge leap. Okay, let me ask the same question to Stephanie. Is it a huge leap? Would you worry about the effect it would have on the image of the country? I don't get that, that Jeff is saying that such a huge thing to indict him. How can that be? You would do that to a president. This man is a man, a citizen, and under the rule of law, if he does something wrong, he's going to get consequences for that. So I don't understand why you're saying, think about how bad that is. This guy trampled all over the world, walked in front of Queen Elizabeth when he was reviewing the guard. Is that a crime? Is that a crime? It's bad matters. You have to draw a line between being boorish and crime. But Tim, from what we know, what about tampering? We've had all these strange calls. And the president, if you make a statement or might make a statement contrary to his interests, and one night at 10 o'clock at night, he calls you and you don't even know what he's going to say. Is that an effect all of itself? Or do you have to wait for him to say, Tim, you can't testify against him? You don't want to get off my good list? I'm going to go with Jeff. Number one, the call was never received. So no conversation took place. Number two is, if the call wasn't received or taken, how does the individual know for a fact it was Donald Trump? It could have been a staff person. It could have been anything. So there's two glaring things right there that I just can't put my arms around as to witness tampering. It's plain and simple. Now, other witnesses, I think it was Hutchison that testified about the kind of mafia, Don, mafioso type of suggestions is Donald's reading the transcripts. And he's concerned that you do the right thing. And the only thing he didn't say is it would be a shame if something happened to your hat. But there was a suggestive language that Donald Trump uses as the kind of the dawn of mafia of New Jersey. Pardon to all New Jersey folks, but I just can't get my arms around it. Yeah, Jeff, can't we factor that in as a piece of circumstance? You might have obstruction of Congress or something. I don't know all the possible things that the Congress can do. I don't think there's much, but maybe obstruction of Congress. I've heard that before. Look, what new have we learned? I totally agree. But what new have we learned from the six hearings that we didn't really know about, but maybe now it's a little bit more definite because we've heard it from a witness. What changes? We know what happened on January 6. We know what happened two hours before. We know what happened during and we know what happened after. So I mean, I was reading the other day, where's the smoking gun? I haven't found it yet. Aside from the smoking gun, certainly Trump doesn't come off very well. No, of course he comes off horribly. But you believed it before it started. We all knew this happened before the committee started. Well, no, 40% of the country thinks he's being persecuted. Well, what about all of his comments about that he wanted the machines removed so that gun people could get in? They're not there to hurt me. They're there to do their other business. These are very damning statements that he's made that have been reported and witnessed and quoted. So why is that not something new? And it's like Joe Biden was working like a demon and he's running around all day doing stuff while Trump was all day working on this. The man's never done a day's work since he's been in the White House. But he was working this thing the whole time. He was not out there talking to the crowd. So let's go back to the original questions, Stephanie. Is this reaching anybody? I mean, Jeff takes the view that it's nice theater. But in the end, it doesn't mean anything. We all knew and we stay in our respective camps. And we're not about to change our minds because of this. You may feel stronger about it, but that doesn't mean the other side, you know, the Trump side is going to feel differently about it. Is this going to affect the election in November? Actually, the voting starts sooner than that. It starts like, my God, in September or so in some states to the extent there is voting. So my question is, is this really going to affect the election? Or are we going to have both houses Republican in November? I think that you brought this up at the beginning of the January six, when it was just putting a committee, when it was being put together, and I thought it was going to be important. You said you didn't think it was going to make a hill of beans different. And I think that I know a lot more now. I know what then Cheney said she wanted to know, which is what was going on minute by minute by this man. If we hadn't had the committee meetings, we wouldn't have known about the congressional involvement. How does that change your position? Does it mean you're going to vote differently than you were before? No. Maybe it means that you're going to send money to Democrats all over the country. What does it mean that? Yeah, I think it could mean that that that might help might help. Yeah, I mean, it's it's yeah. So let me let me go to Tim. Tim, is this a lost cause? Absolutely not. We're going to lose both houses in Congress. I mean, they're going to make a report, right? We should talk about the report. And they're going to put they're going to make this report soon. They understand the timeframe, I hope, and they're going to they're going to make a report. It's going to go public. It's going to be even more dramatic than what we've heard on television. The press will be talking about it left and right, at least the Democratic press. Will it have an effect by November? By this November, I pray not, but is it important? Absolutely. And, you know, this report, and I agree with Jeff, there's no smoking gun. But what there are smoking puzzle pieces that create a quite clear picture in my mind that Donald Trump was up to his nose and trying to rig, you know, not rig, but trying to overthrow the election process on every avenue he turned, he tried to do something. And so I think this hearing is showing those individual pieces of the puzzle that clearly indicate his involvement. Now, you know, in 2020, the Gallup poll showed there was 31% Democrats of this country, 25% GOP and 41% independent. If there's no indictment, I guarantee you a certain percentage of the G, excuse me, of the Democrats and the independents are going to think that judicial system is broken. Because of this House select committee report, they're going to think there is no justice. And number two, apparently, president can do whatever he or she wishes, as Nixon said, I'm the president. So therefore, it's not illegal. It is illegal. And if there's no indictment, I think that's going to be a lack of credibility and faith in our very important judicial system of this country. Nixon was never indicted. No, but Nixon said, well, just because I do it doesn't mean it's illegal. Nixon was never charged. He was never indicted. And there was a burglary, a crime, a crime. And he was never indicted. He was run out for political reasons and rightfully so, because they engaged in all kinds of activities. But and it's the same thing. But no, no, I would argue that this was not Nixon's post called as a cop scout, maybe. No, no. But, but, you know, the argument was that he incited his people to do these things. And they were his people, by the way, they weren't citizens who had, you know, groups of people who believe in certain things. They were his people, his chief of staff, and people working for his campaign. So I'm just pointing out, look, it's all politics. The whole thing is politics. It's the Democrats last gas to try to switch what the inevitable is for November. And you want to look at polls, look at the polls of what's happening in these races across the country. The Republicans are going to take over the house. The only question is by how much, yes, there's still some question about the Senate, you know, whether it will go Republican or not. So they want to get that report out. They want to get the hearings over and hope that some percentage of independence will cast their vote for the Democratic candidate. But that's the same wish they have for abortion. So, you know, it's not like this is going to be the driving issue. I guarantee you it's not. Well, what about 2024? If it's the, if this is what happens in 2022. You're going to get Ron DeSantis, and you'll be more unhappy than we are now. You heard it here on ThinkDeck. I'm telling you, he's, you know, he's smarter and his politics are more conservative and the country will get Ron DeSantis. And then they'll go, God, maybe we should have kept Trump. Well, we're not just bringing in the Iranians. Why don't we just bring in the Mullahs to run our country? That's what it'll be like. Well, no, they can't get in. There you have it. It's called Catholics on the Supreme Court. I mean, almost everybody's Catholic. That's bad enough. Here's what's going to save us. Gavin Newsom. Oh yeah. He's going to go with Gavin Newsom. He's going to come in. He's got the youth. He's got the stamina. He's got the can do it. He's got a he's got a background that's going to be very fascinating when they get into the dirty politics of elections. Absolutely. Absolutely. He can do all that too. No, I'm talking about things that he's done, which, you know, and I'm talking about things that he hasn't done. You're assuming you're assuming it's going to be an honest attempt to assassinate his reputation. How about a dishonest attempt? Well, of course. Well, of course. That would be interesting. Two white men running for president in 2024. Is that possible? It's possible. But I'm not touching it. Hey, Jay, I want to say one thing. You mentioned 2024 and I think minimally this report, number one, serves as a historical signpost as to what has happened and how this government has kind of taken a left turn off into the rocks. But more importantly, right turn, right turn. Excuse me. Yes, thank you. I appreciate that editorial. But it's going to also serve as a basis. And I hope Jeff's right. I hope Donald Trump is going to be assigned to the ash heap by 2023-24 that he'll be irrelevant to being a candidate for President of the United States. That's my hope. But if it's not, I think this report from the House Select Committee will serve as one important thing as a brief, a basis to disqualify Donald Trump as a candidate for President of the 14th Amendment paragraph three. Well, I will agree that the one thing that I think this may accomplish, but I don't think it'll be because of a constitutional or legal issue. I think it is hurting him and it's hurting him with some small percentage of Republicans. And I think it'll be enough, hopefully, that he will not be a credible candidate. Really. I think that's what we can hope for coming out of these hearings. Don't we see glimmers of that now, Jeff? We see glimmers of that right now. So maybe, although it doesn't change the result in the election, it changes his fortune, don't you think? I got to cover one other point, which we should have covered earlier. Let me ask it down. I'll start with you, Stephanie. What about the media? What can the media do? Here we have this really rocking committee hearing and interesting information coming out. Maybe we knew or should have known before, but it is really, as Jeff says, good theater. Is the media handling it correctly? Can the media do more? Can the media do less? I think they can do more to get down to the nit grit, as you all have been discussing here. What is it that's indictable? How likely is he that he'll be indicted? What does this mean that a president can't be indicted? Can they? They need to move it off of just what they've been doing. I think they're running out of steam on just going over everything that they've already said. So they need to take the lead to get into the nit grit, because they didn't do that when Donald Trump stepped out from Trump Tower, came down the elevator. Nobody ever started in on him. Most of the people at that elevator ride watching it were all New York central casting. I mean, there was all kinds of stuff even before you got to the bus with the bad words on it. So I think, Jay, that's a good question and that we need to demand more out of the media's work. Don't just tell us about Cassidy. Tell us about what's going to happen. Yeah, Tim, you're a big First Amendment guy or reverse First Amendment guy, as the case may be. Oh, that's not true. You think that the, okay, what do you think that the First Amendment is in jeopardy here? You think the press should be doing more or less? Well, there's a number of Supreme Court cases that put limitations on the freedom of speech. So it's, you know, it's laden with them and the Black decision of yelling fire in a crowd, but there's just one of many. But, you know, you asked what the media can do and I'll say it's not the media, it's the FCC. Let's have the FCC take a Fox Entertainment to stop, you know, posing as a news station and start delineate them as an editorial board. Let's separate the news desk from the commentary board. And that goes for CNN. That goes for MSNBC. That goes for every news outlet. Don't call them news unless they start reporting the news. So if that's anti First Amendment, then I'm guilty. Jeff, has the media been doing a good job in getting the word out on this? What, if anything, can the media do going forward to get the reach further into the American hinterland? I think, you know, give CNN some reason to hope that their ratings go up. I mean, you know, I mean, you know, I mean, you know, Ukraine has kind of faded, so they can't do that for 12 hours a day. So every, you know, every two days during the hearing and the day after, they spend 24-7 on it, as does MSNBC. And Fox, as Stephanie said, tries to figure out what else they can put on. You know, what other issues they can put on to distract. And occasionally, they'll point out how ridiculous the hearings are. Now, I think the media is doing what they always do with any event. I go back to its theater. I'm sorry. That's what it is. It's politics. It's political theater. It's entertaining. If you have eight hours a day to watch, you know, and it's run by the Democrats, and they're doing exactly what they wanted to do. And you know, you ask, frankly, whether it has an impact. I think it has had an impact on some small number of people. And actually, it's creating a more evil Trump. You know, he could be just sitting by the sidelines now putting his campaign together, but he's too busy tweeting about every single person that talks bad about him. And he's just increasing what people believe about him, at least the majority of the people that he's a megalomaniac with serious psychiatric problems. And hopefully that continues and it gets worse. Okay, what can you and Tim and Stephanie and I and right thinking people do about this? Because you're painting a picture, you guys collectively are painting a picture where this is going to have no immediate effect. And it may not have an effect except in the history books. Well, we all know what we can do. We can just vote or we can contribute to candidates we support. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. You know, the country elected Trump, he didn't become president because he wanted to be, and he just simply decided I'm Donald Trump. You know, the electoral college elected Trump, and they may do it again. And, you know, it depends on the voters and I've talked about this at Nozom on these programs. The country is divided in half. There's the country to the east of the Alleghenies, which is combined with the country, somewhat west of the Rockies with a few exceptions. And then there's everybody in between. That's where we are. You know what, you got to do away with the electoral college because more and more people are moving to rural areas. More and more people are moving out of cities. Gerrymandering is taking away districts that are minority controlled and the Supreme Court is encouraging it. So, you know, you got to just vote because I suppose it could move to Idaho and vote. Well, but the Democrats have won every election on numbers. That's the way the country should be run. Who gets more votes, not who gets more states. And that's what's wrong. And is that ever going to go away? That's got to be fixed. No, no. Okay. I think it's time for it's time for summarization. If you don't mind last word. I'm done. Well, in some sense, Jeff, we're all done. Stephanie, go. I'd like to see the media, the the the visual, the TV do more like what the New York Times does in the other the other print media. This Herschel Walker thing has really got me just desperate for his the person he's running against who's so accomplished and and and he won't allow and they've fixed it. So he never gets to be shown up against. I'm sorry, his name is escaping me. He's that wonderful Reverend and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s church. So why we can't allow that. They can do it in the New York Times. They can write it down what this man says. Well, CNN ought to be able to see here's Herschel Walker and what he says and run it over and over again. We need more real stuff, which is what they didn't do for us when Trump was running for president. We had had more information than I think we could have avoided this. Okay, Tim, up to you to make sense of all this and to give us at least a shred of optimism. Oh, okay. Okay, first off, you know, that's off to Jeff. I agree with his bill proposal, remove electoral college. Amen to that. If I'd like to provide a friendly amendment, and that is turn limits for everyone in Congress, please, and Supreme Court. But what we really have here, I think is a picture that we've never seen quite in history. And that is a president who just couldn't accept the loss of a vote in 2020 and had to work overtime in every avenue he possibly could to try to just change that that he would retain power. It's a lesson of it's a sad lesson of a flawed, a mentally flawed individual who just couldn't accept a loss and to this day still does not. As far as a positive optimistic look, the gears of democracy is still working. We have a system as as was mentioned on the show, we're not in Russia. This would never be viewed in half of the half of the countries in South America and certainly not in Russia or in China. This is a rare thing that we're watching and it's democracy at its best. My final comment, even though I said I had none, until the country really has one person, one vote, we got big problem. Okay, I guess what I take from that is we're done. Thank you, Tim. Thank you, Stephanie. It depends. It depends what color you want your meat to be. I'd say we're out of the red and we're moving into the dark brown. Can I use a quotation before we sign off? Can I use one of your quotations? Sure. I think I'm going to soak my head. Can I make a book recommendation? There's a book out, Gideon Rachman. He's written The Age of the Strong Man. So he's an editor of the Financial Times, Britt, and he's got a fabulous book out that explains the globalization forces that are pressurizing all of this and then what happens within the countries with the issues of popularism and how these men are so attractive to these people who are so afflicted and the liberal democracies are not meeting their needs and they've just got to rise up and become more informed about it to understand the emotional issues that are involved as well as the lack of attention to the real issues on the ground that these people are dealing with. Okay, we've got to let Tim go and soak his head as the case may be. Thank you all. Thank you, Stephanie. Thank you, Tim. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, James. I so enjoyed these discussions. Aloha. DeKawaii.com. Mahalo.