You say potato, this leading (conservative) Constitutional expert says - under oath - "America’s democracy was almost stolen from us on January 6," and "Our democracy has never been tested like it was on that day," and "Today, America is in constitutional crisis."
https://www.thebulwark.com/a-stake-...-and-our-democracy-today-is-on-a-knifes-edge/
I would be interested to hear why you so strongly disagree with his assessment, beyond just stating it as fact. What is your basis other than saying that those who saw Trump's (and his associates) acts as a major threat are engaging in hyperbole? In your mind would Trump have actually had to succeed in his plan in order for the republic to be in danger? Is a person only in danger of being mugged if they actually get mugged?
FWIW, I understand Luttig to be saying that the Constitutionally delineated process for electing a president and validating the results of an election was stressed like never before, and while it may have held this time, to brush it off like it was no big deal is to basically whistle past the graveyard. I guess the other way of framing it is, if we brush this off and call reactions to it "hyperbole," are we saying we're willing to normalize and accept future extra-Constitutional efforts to gain and/or maintain the presidency? And, if so, how does that not already represent a sacrifice of what has made the republic what it is until now?
Regarding the rest. No one said the Raffensberger information was new, but that doesn't mean it isn't incredibly damning. I mean, do we have a lot (any?) examples of sitting presidents running for reelection using their office to strong arm local election officials and tell them to "find" 12,000 votes? Do we have a lot of examples of Chiefs of Staff bribing those same officials with campaign memorabilia (which is so comically vain it's almost unbelievable)? And those are just two examples.
And whether any of that is illegal, it seems part of the constant issue is whether or not a POTUS should or even can be prosecuted. And, again, I'm no legal expert, but I guess I'd assume that pressuring and bribing local election officials to "find" votes, and falsifying documents that purport to be official slates of electors would swing more in the direction of illegal vs. merely unethical. (I'd assume that if anyone else conducted themselves in this way, they'd be liable to prosecution.)
As for the Committee, I think expecting them to turn up something(s) illegal is possibly too big of an ask (even though they may have done it already). For one, what are they going to do about it anyway? Isn't it DOJ's (or the state justice departments) job to decide what's potentially illegal and prosecute?
What I understand the Committee to be saying about their job is that it is to get on the historical and public record what happened and why, which may be vitally important going forward given the attempts to reframe all of this as a "tourist visit gone awry" or "a humble president just trying to make sure everything was fair." (And certainly, one can say that getting this on the record isn't vitally important because Jan 6th and everything else really wasn't a big deal, but, if they do, don't they basically have to either: (a) say that any future attempts to usurp rather than win the presidency are kosher; or (b) admit that they're willing to accept such attempts by their guy but not the other?)
Regarding the documentary, I'm in complete agreement that folks would be wise to keep their powder dry until they've actually seen it. But the flipside of that argument is that we probably also shouldn't preemptively declare it a nothingburger. The media constantly gets out over their skis, but, IMO, the Committee hasn't really had a misstep yet. (I suspect Cheney and Kinzinger have had a lot to do with that). I don't really see them using the video unless there's something in it.
