Earlier this month, Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, made a big show of her willingness and desire to march right up to Capitol Hill and clear her good name before the Jan. 6th investigation committee. Yesterday, her lawyer said the committee just turns out to be too biased. So she won't be testifying after all.

See Also:  Former aide Cassidy Hutchinson testifies on Jan. 6 warnings, pardon requests, and Trump trying to grab the wheel

Two White House security officials who allegedly scuffled with the President in the presidential limousine are now denying through intermediaries what Cassidy Hutchinson said under oath in yesterday's hearing. But Ginni Thomas's switcheroo is a good reminder that talk — or rather claims through intermediaries — is cheap. People who claim they are just champing at the bit to testify usually end up refusing to testify.

See Also:  CNN's Don Lemon defends questioning Karine Jean-Pierre about Biden's mental fitness: 'It's our job'

Indeed, it's fair to question the journalistic decisions behind some of these reports. Most of us had never heard of Cassidy Hutchinson until a few days ago. Her claims definitely deserve scrutiny. But testimony under oath is the price of entry to this conversation. Indeed, the two men in question, Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel, have been able to get denials into print without even agreeing to speak on the record. In other words, they've refused to call up reporters and say, "I never said what she claims and the incident did not happen." They have been able to get reporters to report that people 'familiar with their thinking' say they will deny it. I assure you: They could get their on-the-record quotes into print at the drop of a hat. All it takes is a phone call.

See Also:  MSNBC panel wonders if Ginni Thomas should be 'perp-walked' by Jan. 6 Committee

It is worth noting that one of the men has already been accused of lying on Trump's behalf and both had a reputation of working as Trump's enablers during his presidency. Indeed, day two reports suggest that the purported denials are perhaps more semantic than substantive, denying that the President "assaulted" the lead Secret Service agent as opposed to denying that there was an irate confrontation in the limousine in which the President demanded to be taking to the Capitol.

See Also:  Joy Behar says 'The View' changed when Trump got elected: 'We used to have more laughs'

Maybe these two will testify. Maybe the story is different than what Hutchinson claimed. But until the two are willing at least to speak on the record, it's really all meaningless. And her claims are more credible until these two agree to testify about this incident under oath.

See Also:  Boris Johnson rebukes CNN talking point that American democracy is dying: 'Grossly exaggerated'

Former President Trump's speech at the Ellipse was many things — low-class, loaded with conspiracy theories, reckless.

See Also:  Former aide Cassidy Hutchinson testifies on Jan. 6 warnings, pardon requests, and Trump trying to grab the wheel

But to many legal elites, it fell short of incitement.

See Also:  CNN's Don Lemon defends questioning Karine Jean-Pierre about Biden's mental fitness: 'It's our job'

But after the Jan. 6 Committee hearings — and, specifically, after Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony on Tuesday — that view may be starting to change.

See Also:  MSNBC panel wonders if Ginni Thomas should be 'perp-walked' by Jan. 6 Committee

Multiple legal commentators and former DOJ officials who had publicly stated, before Tuesday, that Trump's activities did not meet the exacting legal standard for incitement have now changed their views.

See Also:  Joy Behar says 'The View' changed when Trump got elected: 'We used to have more laughs'

"There's no question about intent. There are enough pieces of evidence about what Trump did that made this more likely than not," said Alan Rozenshtein, an associate professor at University of Minnesota Law and former attorney-adviser in the DOJ's National Security Division. "He tried to get the magnetometers removed, tried to get them to march on the Capitol."

See Also:  Boris Johnson rebukes CNN talking point that American democracy is dying: 'Grossly exaggerated'

The testimony paints the picture, he said, of knowing wrongdoing by the former president.

See Also:  U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says Putin has 'already failed' in strategic objective to end Ukraine's independence

It marks a shift for Rozenshtein, mirrored by other legal observers across the political spectrum.

See Also:  Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dodges on whether she'll support Biden in 2024, focuses on midterms: 'That's not a yes'

Before Hutchinson's testimony, Trump's remarks were viewed by many as reckless, but fundamentally within the realm of political speech, evading the standard for incitement. It was, commentators argued, definitely within the boundaries granted to politicians, who frequently urge supporters to "fight" for political action.

See Also:  NBC Washington Correspondent Yamiche Alcindor and former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade join Andrea Mitchell to discuss key challenges facing the January 6 Committee ahead of their primetime hearings this week: getting a "distracted nation" to pay attention and understand what's at stake. "I think the biggest challenge for lawmakers here, as they talk about these sort of huge ideas of American democracy and sort of the experiment that we're all living in, benefiting from, possibly being brought to his knees, is whether or not they can make people care," says Alcindor. "The American public has been groomed to expect high value quick entertainment," says McQuade. "I think putting together a polished show can be very important." 

In January, Rozenshtein argued to TPM that Trump's action's on Jan. 6 didn't meet the bar in part for that reason — they qualified as political speech — even as he took to "alleging a massive conspiracy and fraud on the American public."

ee Also:  Joy Behar said on "The View" on Monday that inflation and high gas prices were a "worldwide problem" and largely blamed the baby formula shortage on Republicans.

"It's a lie, but to me it's campaign rhetoric; that's him going to the American people, and it's what we'd want him to do if the Constitution really were under attack," Rozenshtein said.

See Also:  Here's the Story with Kyrsten Sinema

But Hutchinson added a few sentences which, for Rozenshtein, changed that calculus.

See Also:  Sara Haines asked Sen. Chris Murphy if the Republican Party is going further right during Tuesday's episode of "The View."

"Take the f-ing mags away. They're not here to hurt me. Let them in. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol after the rally is over," Hutchinson recalled Trump saying.

See Also:  Joy Reid accuses Republicans of thriving on 'demographic panic,' says GOP wants no one to feel 'safe'

It's not that Hutchinson's testimony was itself a smoking gun. But it emerged after weeks of hearing which describe a coordinated, premeditated campaign to overturn the election result which culminated in an explosion of violence on Jan. 6.

See Also:  "The View" co-host Joy Behar said Wednesday that gun laws would change "once Black people get guns in this country."

Her testimony in conjunction with the other hearings have changed the views of other legal commentators across the political spectrum. David French, the notable conservative attorney and never-Trumper, wrote a column arguing that Hutchinson's testimony provided persuasive evidence that Trump met the legal standard for incitement provided by the Supreme Court in the Brandenburg case: that of stoking "imminent lawless action."

See Also: Ana Navarro loses it during CNN gun control panel: 'Get your a--es in gear and call your Senators!'

"He is trying to bring in not just the guns, but the people with the guns, into the mob," left-leaning Fordham Law Professor Shugerman told TPM. "It's not a slam-dunk case yet, but up until yesterday, most of what we had was political speech."

See Also:  Phim Tống Từ - Nhân Chứng 

The difference for Shugerman, too, came with Trump's alleged "take the f-ing mags away" remark.

See Also:  Phim Tống Từ - Bức Màn Bí Mật

"Those three sentences give you mens rea," he added — the legal term for when a person has knowledge that they're doing something that violates the law.

See Also:  Phim Bao Thanh Thiên

Even Andrew McCarthy of the National Review, typically more interested in condemning those investigating Trump, conceded that Hutchinson's testimony pointed to the former President being "culpable" for the riot.

See Also: CNN correspondent Whitney Wild downplayed the violent threat against Justice Brett Kavanaugh's life and warned about political violence from both sides, after an armed man was arrested outside the justice's home, Wednesday.  

"It's a vibe shift," Rozenshtein laughed.

See Also: CNN media analyst on Kimmel interview: Biden could use 'exposure' that isn't 'too challenging' for him

At the time, per Hutchinson's testimony, Trump had been informed that men armed with AR-15s and "spears" were gathering near the Ellipse. Hutchinson testified that Trump then ordered the armed men to be allowed into the crowd with their weapons. He then directed the crowd to the Capitol.

See Also: Texas Rep Jasmine Crockett blamed Republicans for shooting: 'The blood of these children' is on their hands

There's still much that's unknown about the episode including, as Shugerman pointed out, whether the Secret Service followed the order and let the armed men through.

See Also:  Whoopi Goldberg says 'both sides' guilty of rhetoric like Schumer's against Kavanaugh, must 'be more careful'

Shugerman also believed before Hutchinson's testimony that Trump hadn't met the bar for a crime. But he said that after hearing Hutchinson's testimony, he saw two elements of a criminal charge for incitement potentially met: intent, and a bad act.

See Also: Pelosi defends not passing a bill, claims Supreme Court Justices aren't in any danger despite assassination attempt this week…

"Some speech is performative, but if a president give an order to do something, that's an order," Shugerman said. "This is not just political speech anymore — an order to take away metal detectors is a concrete act."

See Also:  Former aide Cassidy Hutchinson testifies on Jan. 6 warnings, pardon requests, and Trump trying to grab the wheel

And Rozenshtein argued that for any charging decision, prosecutors would still have to weigh the same balance between protecting political speech and punishing wrongdoing.

See Also:  CNN's Don Lemon defends questioning Karine Jean-Pierre about Biden's mental fitness: 'It's our job'

"Does [Merrick Garland] think that these facts are sufficiently egregious that Trump can be prosecuted without really anyone in the future being worried that if I make a speech criticizing some congressional budget resolution, I'm gonna be liable for incitement?" he asked rhetorically.

See Also:  MSNBC panel wonders if Ginni Thomas should be 'perp-walked' by Jan. 6 Committee

It's not clear how senior DOJ leaders like Attorney General Merrick Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco will view the testimony or if it's even new information for them.

See Also:  Joy Behar says 'The View' changed when Trump got elected: 'We used to have more laughs'

Whether Garland has the appetite to launch such a prosecution also isn't clear. Shugerman, among others, thought that incitement to riot may not even be the applicable charge in a situation where statutes already exist that prohibit the intimidation of members of Congress.

See Also:  Boris Johnson rebukes CNN talking point that American democracy is dying: 'Grossly exaggerated'

But the description of Trump's conduct is now public, as are the concerns of those around him that they would need pardons before he completed his term.

See Also:  U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says Putin has 'already failed' in strategic objective to end Ukraine's independence

That, Rozenshtein and other argued, puts pressure on the DOJ to decide how it will act.

See Also:  Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dodges on whether she'll support Biden in 2024, focuses on midterms: 'That's not a yes'

"Indictments are not just about whether the case is legally provable, but about whether its in the public interest to charge," he said.

In his opening statement of the first public hearing, Jan. 6 committee chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) reminded listeners of the different, and likely more toothless, version of the panel he and his fellow Democrats were clamoring for around this time last summer.

See Also:  Joy Reid accuses Republicans of thriving on 'demographic panic,' says GOP wants no one to feel 'safe'

"My colleagues and I all wanted an outside, independent commission to investigate January 6th, similar to what we had after 9/11," he said. "But after first agreeing to the idea, Donald Trump's allies in Congress put a stop to it. Apparently, they don't want January 6th investigated at all."

See Also:  Sara Haines asked Sen. Chris Murphy if the Republican Party is going further right during Tuesday's episode of "The View."

It's a callback to a time when short-sighted Republicans saved Democrats from a version of the fact-finding effort that Trump's allies could have much more easily obstructed.

See Also:  Joy Behar said on "The View" on Monday that inflation and high gas prices were a "worldwide problem" and largely blamed the baby formula shortage on Republicans.

Back then, as Thompson recalled, Democrats hungered for a commission in the vaunted 9/11 model — resolutely bipartisan and largely unanimous. Most Republicans, after some initial and short-lived endorsement of a theoretical independent commission, didn't really want to investigate the insurrection at all beyond a superficial look at Capitol security weak spots.

See Also:  Here's the Story with Kyrsten Sinema

Still, Reps. John Katko (R-NY) and Thompson, leaders of the House Homeland Security committee, got to work outlining the contours of an independent commission in spring 2021. The former reportedly did so at House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's (R-CA) behest. 

See Also:  NBC Washington Correspondent Yamiche Alcindor and former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade join Andrea Mitchell to discuss key challenges facing the January 6 Committee ahead of their primetime hearings this week: getting a "distracted nation" to pay attention and understand what's at stake. "I think the biggest challenge for lawmakers here, as they talk about these sort of huge ideas of American democracy and sort of the experiment that we're all living in, benefiting from, possibly being brought to his knees, is whether or not they can make people care," says Alcindor. "The American public has been groomed to expect high value quick entertainment," says McQuade. "I think putting together a polished show can be very important."

Their design was so emphatically collaborative that it would have given the recalcitrant Republicans extensive control over the investigation: Republican cooperation was required to issue each subpoena; the commission's final report was due not later than the last day of 2021, well before the midterms; the non-lawmaker appointees would have been evenly split between the two parties, increasing the chances of a partisan schism. 

See Also:  Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dodges on whether she'll support Biden in 2024, focuses on midterms: 'That's not a yes'

"I ask you to set aside politics just this once," Katko implored his colleagues from the House floor, banging on the lectern to punctuate his words. "Just this once — I beg you — and pass this bill."

See Also: Pelosi defends not passing a bill, claims Supreme Court Justices aren't in any danger despite assassination attempt this week…

But Republican leadership had turned on the idea. McCarthy, at the eleventh hour, urged his members to vote against the legislation he'd asked Katko to help draft. Thirty-five of them voted for it anyway.

See Also:  Whoopi Goldberg says 'both sides' guilty of rhetoric like Schumer's against Kavanaugh, must 'be more careful'

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), too, pressured his members to oppose the bill. Republican leadership found it easier, on the whole, to write Katko out of the story, the better to decry the panel as a brainchild of Democratic leadership.

See Also: Texas Rep Jasmine Crockett blamed Republicans for shooting: 'The blood of these children' is on their hands

"I've made the decision to oppose the House Democrats' slanted and unbalanced proposal for another commission to study the events of January the 6th," McConnell said from the Senate floor.

See Also: CNN media analyst on Kimmel interview: Biden could use 'exposure' that isn't 'too challenging' for him

Six Republicans ignored his guidance, four fewer than were needed to overcome the filibuster. 

 See Also: CNN correspondent Whitney Wild downplayed the violent threat against Justice Brett Kavanaugh's life and warned about political violence from both sides, after an armed man was arrested outside the justice's home, Wednesday.  

And the independent commission, one which Republicans could have manipulated far more easily than its current iteration, was dead. Katko announced that he'd retire from the House a few months later. 

See Also: Ana Navarro loses it during CNN gun control panel: 'Get your a--es in gear and call your Senators!'

With the Senate effectively out of the picture, the drama moved back to the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) could unilaterally set up a select committee staffed by current lawmakers. 

See Also:  "The View" co-host Joy Behar said Wednesday that gun laws would change "once Black people get guns in this country."

With Republicans having rejected a format much more amenable to their interests, Democrats had all the advantages. Pelosi would appoint 13 members, though she'd "consult" with McCarthy on five of them. Her chosen chair would have unilateral subpoena power, and the committee could take all the time it wanted on the investigation. 

See Also:  Joy Reid accuses Republicans of thriving on 'demographic panic,' says GOP wants no one to feel 'safe'

McCarthy announced his picks: Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Jim Banks (R-IN), Troy Nehls (R-TX), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) and Rodney Davis (R-IL). Pelosi rejected the Jims. 

See Also:  Sara Haines asked Sen. Chris Murphy if the Republican Party is going further right during Tuesday's episode of "The View."

Jordan and Banks, along with Nehls who she okayed, had voted against certifying the 2020 Electoral College vote. All five Republicans voted against impeaching then-President Donald Trump after the insurrection.

See Also:  Joy Behar said on "The View" on Monday that inflation and high gas prices were a "worldwide problem" and largely blamed the baby formula shortage on Republicans.

"With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee," Pelosi said in a statement.

See Also:  Here's the Story with Kyrsten Sinema

In a fit of pique, McCarthy held a high-volume press conference, declaring that if the Reps. Jims couldn't serve, none of his picks would. An indignant Nehls, waving his prop inches from McCarthy's face, pointed out that he'd already prepared a binder and everything.

See Also:  NBC Washington Correspondent Yamiche Alcindor and former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade join Andrea Mitchell to discuss key challenges facing the January 6 Committee ahead of their primetime hearings this week: getting a "distracted nation" to pay attention and understand what's at stake. "I think the biggest challenge for lawmakers here, as they talk about these sort of huge ideas of American democracy and sort of the experiment that we're all living in, benefiting from, possibly being brought to his knees, is whether or not they can make people care," says Alcindor. "The American public has been groomed to expect high value quick entertainment," says McQuade. "I think putting together a polished show can be very important."

Pelosi, who by that point had appointed Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) to the committee, shrugged. The committee would be bipartisan either way, she pointed out. A few days after McCarthy withdrew the rest of his picks, Pelosi appointed Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) as well. 

See Also:  Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dodges on whether she'll support Biden in 2024, focuses on midterms: 'That's not a yes'

"Our members all regret that the initial hope for an independent commission to investigate this was derailed by allies to the former president after details were agreed by both parties," a Jan. 6 committee aide told reporters last week. 

See Also: Pelosi defends not passing a bill, claims Supreme Court Justices aren't in any danger despite assassination attempt this week…

The members may regret it. But the American people, who are learning details and connections unearthed by a serious panel featuring Republicans who lack the power and desire to derail the investigation in favor of their party's political prospects, are better for it.  

Sometimes the biggest things happening in the world are happening out of view. Sometimes they're hidden but just as often they simply don't get the attention they should because they don't have traction as news stories. Or perhaps all the players have their own interests in not drawing attention to them. You may have noticed that Joe Biden is traveling to Saudi Arabia next month and that he plans to hold a summit with the de facto ruler of the country, Mohammed bin Salman — usually called MBS. He's going to Riyadh. MBS is not coming to Washington. This is presented as a full reset of relations between the two countries and — though this is stated less directly — a full reset with MBS. So all that human-rights, Yemen-war, Jamal-Khashoggi-being-dismembered-at-a-consulate-in-Istanbul stuff is done with. That was then. This is now.

See Also:  Whoopi Goldberg says 'both sides' guilty of rhetoric like Schumer's against Kavanaugh, must 'be more careful'

So why would the U.S. do this? Well, that's pretty straightforward. We have no choice. The Saudis, and really MBS, has played the most brass knuckle kind of hardball with the U.S. And he's won. I don't think there's any other way to put it. There's a complex set of causes behind the inflation that currently plagues the U.S. and global economy. The exact interplay between supply chain disruption, pent-up demand from the pandemic, demand driven by stimulus spending, changed work and leisure patterns driven by the pandemic isn't clear. The relative importance of each is a matter of on-going controversy. But a critical part of the equation is energy prices — both in their political impact and as a driver in the economy overall.

See Also: Texas Rep Jasmine Crockett blamed Republicans for shooting: 'The blood of these children' is on their hands

For many decades, Saudi Arabia has been the key player in the global oil market. That is not only as one of the largest producers but as the producer with the greatest production elasticity. Put simply, the Saudis can dial up supply quickly if they want to. And that means they have an outsized impact on global prices. For the last year and a half the U.S. has needed the Saudis to step in and hike production very, very badly. That's both for the health of the U.S. economy and for Joe Biden's political fortunes. And MBS has consistently said, no. Why should I? What have you done for me lately? All I hear is that I'm a pariah and now you want my help? Being tight with the Trump family and particularly Jared Kushner hasn't hurt certainly. There are numerous reasons why MBS is more aligned with U.S. Republicans and more autocratic rulers around the world. But the biggest thing here is likely simply to be respected and power.

See Also: CNN media analyst on Kimmel interview: Biden could use 'exposure' that isn't 'too challenging' for him

The Saudis didn't cause the economic trajectory of the last 18 months. But they could have altered it very substantially. They didn't. And they refused against a gusher of U.S. demands and pleas.

See Also: CNN correspondent Whitney Wild downplayed the violent threat against Justice Brett Kavanaugh's life and warned about political violence from both sides, after an armed man was arrested outside the justice's home, Wednesday.  

This hasn't all been to stick it to the U.S. and the Biden administration. After all, the Saudis and other producer states have been making a fortune. There is also Russia's new partnership with OPEC through OPEC+. That's weighed in the balance too. But that's another part of the same equation. The Saudis have been more solicitous of Russia than the U.S. This has all come even more to the fore after the Russian invasion of Ukraine which put even greater pressure on global energy supplies — oil and natural gas. It may be Ukraine that finally forced the White House to cry uncle.

See Also: Ana Navarro loses it during CNN gun control panel: 'Get your a--es in gear and call your Senators!'

The Saudis have us over a barrel. Now we're suing for peace. Not a pretty picture. But we have no choice.

See Also:  "The View" co-host Joy Behar said Wednesday that gun laws would change "once Black people get guns in this country."

Remember John Eastman, Donald Trump's chief election theft legal advisor?

See Also: Pelosi defends not passing a bill, claims Supreme Court Justices aren't in any danger despite assassination attempt this week…

And remember when, after he was subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 Committee, Eastman unsuccessfully attempted to keep private a group of emails that he said concerned "civic minded citizens of a conservative viewpoint who meet semi-regularly to socialize and discuss issues of public concern"? The group, apparently, had a "high-profile leader." 

See Also:  Whoopi Goldberg says 'both sides' guilty of rhetoric like Schumer's against Kavanaugh, must 'be more careful'

That prompted a good deal of speculation — including at TPM — about just who that high-profile leader might be. We had some ideas.

See Also: Texas Rep Jasmine Crockett blamed Republicans for shooting: 'The blood of these children' is on their hands 

Well, now we have confirmation: The group was apparently one that included Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and a right-wing activist heavily involved in her own right in the effort to steal a second Trump term. 

See Also: CNN media analyst on Kimmel interview: Biden could use 'exposure' that isn't 'too challenging' for him

After an explosive pair of articles this week describing fresh committee records detailing the correspondence between the two, Eastman on Thursday acknowledged reality himself, posting a copy of a Dec. 4 invitation from Ginni Thomas for him to speak to her group "Frontliners" four days later, and to present "a status update to a group of grassroots state leaders."

See Also: CNN correspondent Whitney Wild downplayed the violent threat against Justice Brett Kavanaugh's life and warned about political violence from both sides, after an armed man was arrested outside the justice's home, Wednesday.  

Eastman didn't confirm outright that the invitation he described was the same correspondence he tried to keep hidden from the committee, but the details of both records appear to match up.

See Also: Ana Navarro loses it during CNN gun control panel: 'Get your a--es in gear and call your Senators!'

Don't worry, Eastman said, that thing where he wrote on Dec. 24 that "I understand that there is a heated fight underway" within the Supreme Court — that definitely wasn't based on insider knowledge from the Thomas family.

See Also:  "The View" co-host Joy Behar said Wednesday that gun laws would change "once Black people get guns in this country."

"I can categorically confirm that at no time did I discuss with Mrs. Thomas or Justice Thomas any matters pending or likely to come before the Court," he said in a blog post Thursday. "We have never engaged in such discussions, would not engage in such discussions, and did not do so in December 2020 or anytime else." 

See Also:  Joy Reid accuses Republicans of thriving on 'demographic panic,' says GOP wants no one to feel 'safe'

Eastman claims, instead, he was relying on internet rumors published on conservative websites. He pointed to one example from the Vision Times. As the Washington Post's Philip Bump pointed out yesterday, unfounded stories about a supposed fight among the justices were spread across the internet, and even made their way into Trump's election-theft litigation.

See Also:  Sara Haines asked Sen. Chris Murphy if the Republican Party is going further right during Tuesday's episode of "The View."

But that's not to say he wasn't in touch with Ginni Thomas at all! "As you can see for yourselves, she invited me to give an update about election litigation to a group she met with periodically," Eastman said. 

See Also:  Joy Behar said on "The View" on Monday that inflation and high gas prices were a "worldwide problem" and largely blamed the baby formula shortage on Republicans.

See! Nothing to worry about. 

See Also:  Here's the Story with Kyrsten Sinema

Thomas, for her part, sent dozens of emails to state lawmakers pressuring them to overturn the election results. The committee has requested an interview with Thomas, who told the Daily Caller Thursday that she "can't wait to clear up misconceptions."

See Also:  NBC Washington Correspondent Yamiche Alcindor and former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade join Andrea Mitchell to discuss key challenges facing the January 6 Committee ahead of their primetime hearings this week: getting a "distracted nation" to pay attention and understand what's at stake. "I think the biggest challenge for lawmakers here, as they talk about these sort of huge ideas of American democracy and sort of the experiment that we're all living in, benefiting from, possibly being brought to his knees, is whether or not they can make people care," says Alcindor. "The American public has been groomed to expect high value quick entertainment," says McQuade. "I think putting together a polished show can be very important."