People are Talking about Jan 6th and that's Bad for Trump

JD Vance and Jack Smith have put Trump's past - and future - efforts to overturn the election back on the agenda

Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate was a throwback from another era. The tone was largely civil. There were no Trumpian flourishes or broadsides against the moderator. Vance, Walz, and the moderators acted like this was a normal election — the typical contest between two different parties who care about the country but differ on policy. Everyone ignored the giant orange elephant in the room. I understand why Walz took the approach he did — it made strategic sense. But everything felt off, given the stakes of this election. Even though JD Vance put a coat of Bush-ian compassionate conservatism on the MAGA agenda, this is not a normal election, and Vance is not the normal vice presidential candidate.

There is one reason Vance was on that stage and Mike Pence wasn’t. Vance will do whatever it takes to put Trump in the White House no matter what the voters decide. Voters care most about reproductive freedom, the price of gas and groceries, and border security. Every poll, focus group, and conversation with random voters in the grocery store makes that clear. 

However, the fact that Donald Trump has been indicted for conspiring to overturn the last election and is publicly promising to overturn the next one hangs over this entire campaign. Yet, there has been limited discussion from the candidates, the media, and the voters about what Trump did on January 6th. Sometimes it feels as if that dark day has been memory-holed. At one point, Trump was supposed to be standing trial right now for his role in the conspiracy to overturn the election that led to the violence at the Capitol. Alas, the Supreme Court intervened on his behalf and Trump’s crimes against democracy disappeared from the campaign agenda.

Until this week.

Thanks to JD Vance and Jack Smith, January 6th is once again public discourse; and that’s a problem for Trump.

Vance Steps In It

Weirdly, we had to wait until the last question to discuss democracy and whether Trump would allow a peaceful transition of power. Vance had been doing well; and then he faceplanted. The moment Vance refused to acknowledge that Trump lost the election, Vance lost the debate. The Bulwark’s Will Saletan eloquently explained why this moment was so consequential:

But there was only one question on which the vice presidency—the job for which these two men are competing—really matters. That question was whether they would certify the results of the next presidential election. And on that subject, Vance gave a non-answer that instantly disqualifies him: He refused to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.

Certification of elections was a central factor in Vance’s audition to become Trump’s running mate. Other contenders for the job demonstrated, as Vance did, that they were sufficiently right-wing or loyal to MAGA. But, as Thomas Joscelyn has pointed out in The Bulwark, Vance stood out in one respect: He was the one who signaled most clearly that he was willing to push constitutional boundaries to do Trump’s bidding.

Nowadays, only political junkies watch debates. Moments like these travel on social media in the hours and days after a debate. Vance’s damning non-answer is everywhere. It’s the one thing people are talking about after a lightly-viewed, overly collegial, somnambulant debate. The Harris-Walz campaign immediately recognized the gravity of Vance’s answer — and the opportunity it presented. Within hours of the debate, they released this ad.

This moment might have faded from the political conversation, but then Jack Smith (Remember him?) popped back up.

The New News

On Wednesday, the January 6th case was back in the news. Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer wrote in the New York Times:

In a sprawling legal brief partly unsealed on Wednesday, the special counsel, Jack Smith, laid out his case for why former President Donald J. Trump is not immune from prosecution on federal charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

The redacted brief, made public by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the Federal District Court in Washington, adds new details to the already extensive public record of how Mr. Trump lost the race but attempted nonetheless to cling to power.

The filing is filled with damning details about the role Trump and his aides played in the various schemes to overturn the election. Perhaps the most evocative and alarming revelation involves how Trump reacted to the threats on Vice President Pence’s life. From the New York Times report:

After Mr. Trump’s Twitter post focused the enraged mob’s attention on harming Mr. Pence and the Secret Service took the vice president to a secure location, an aide rushed into the dining room off the Oval Office where Mr. Trump was watching television. The aide alerted him to the developing situation, in the hope that Mr. Trump would then take action to ensure Mr. Pence’s safety.

Instead, Mr. Trump looked at the aide and said only, “So what?”

Other revelations include Trump telling Jared Kushner and Ivanka, "It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell." The whole filing tells a story. Trump and his allies are willing to break any law and stomp any norm to hold on to power. The Big Lie was a fabricated justification to steal an election.

It’s not just Vance and Judge Chutkan keeping January 6th in the news, “Fight Like Hell” a powerful new documentary about January 6th was released. You can watch it on YouTube.

Please consider sharing it with your friends and family.

Later today, Harris will campaign with Liz Cheney, who served on the January 6th Committee and is one of the more powerful voices about Trump’s anti-democratic efforts.

January 6th is a Problem for Trump

The polling is straightforward. Most Republicans don’t support what happened on January 6th. People aren’t buying the BS that Trump, Vance and the Right are trying to sell about the tragedy. A Data for Progress poll shows that less than a third of Republicans describe January 6th as a peaceful protest. That poll also found that 53% of voters and 57% of Independents are less likely to support a candidate who supports attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

This is bigger than what Trump did four years ago. It’s about what he could do one month from now. Remember, he has yet to say that he will accept the election results, he is planning to pardon the folks who stormed the Capitol, he threatened violence if he loses, and he pledges to jail his political opponents if he wins. The economy and abortion are key to this election, but the more people are thinking about January 6th, the Big Lie, and potential political violence, the less likely they are to vote for Trump. For that, he has JD Vance to thank.