Rep. Thompson, the committee’s chair, said there would be no hearings, which prompted Rep. Liz Cheney and Rep. Adam Schiff to reply that no such ruling has been made. The committee has postponed its next meeting in response to the chaos.
They’ve given a formal explanation, but is anybody buying it?
“The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol announced Tuesday that it was postponing its public hearing, which had been scheduled for 10 a.m. ET Wednesday.”
The next hearing has been rescheduled for Thursday instead. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., a member of the panel, explained to reporters Tuesday that the postponement was caused by “technical difficulties” resulting from an “enormous” demand on staff to record videos.
I’m afraid there’s no other way to say it: they postponed a long-awaited hearing because they didn’t have all of their videos prepared. That doesn’t even come close to passing the smell test. Those kinds of production components are well planned ahead of time, and the committee would not be two days away from a hearing and still need all of the exhibit materials.
What exactly is the reason for it? I’d guess that Monday’s hearing was so disastrous that they’re now on the hunt for something new to shock and awe the world with. It might explain why they’re in such a hurry to produce more videos lately. But what does it tell you about the actual evidence they say they have if they can’t just show up and offer it without further manipulation?
There’s also the chance that the committee has been informed that the decision in Dobbs v. the United States, which is expected to overturn Roe v. Wade, will be released on Wednesday. There hasn’t been an official announcement yet, but the Supreme Court will release decisions on Wednesday as the term comes to a close. Given how much publicity-seeking the committee is, that makes sense. The last thing they wish to do is compete with enraged mobs furious over the potential loss of their nonexistent “right” to abortion.
Aside from that, could it be the infighting has gotten to the members, causing them to be unable to agree on a long-term strategy? That’s not an entirely random idea. Clearly, certain members want to take the criminal referrals all the way whereas the chairman does not. Such a quarrel would have an impact on how they play their hands in subsequent hearings.
