Brooks and Capehart on the Jan. 6 hearings and the push for gun safety legislation

Judy Woodruff:

With new light being cast on the events before, during and after the January 6 attack on the Capitol, let's turn now to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.

That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

Hello to both of you on this Friday night.

Jonathan Capehart:

Hey, Judy.

Judy Woodruff:

Thank you for being here.

Let's just pick up with where we left off, listening to these two congressmen, Jonathan, reprising some of what we saw last night.

Where did this all land with you?

Jonathan Capehart:

The hearing?

Judy Woodruff:

The hearing.

Jonathan Capehart:

It was a good opening act.

And I don't mean that in a derogatory sense. This is the first hearing of many that we're going to see. I think Congressman Banks' assertion that videos were edited and they presented no evidence, that is an incredibly long limb to walk out on, considering we don't know yet what the committee is going to be presenting in the subsequent hearings.

The other thing that I found a little interesting is that the congressman's expressed concern about the Capitol Police officers and getting them the training and everything, well-placed concern, but he voted against a COVID package that $350 billion for police in it.

So I just wanted to put that out there. And it was sort of bugging me as I watched that interview.

But, overall, in terms of the hearing, it — it's incredibly important for the American people to know from a legislative body that has been investigating for more than a year what they have found out about how close we came to losing our democracy, who was responsible, who was involved, the conversations that were had.

And then to see with our own eyes Trump administration officials talking about these events was chilling. And so, for a first hearing, it was it was an attention-grabber. But I don't want people to think that just because, maybe, oh, have heard this before or I know this story, that's not the point of this hearing.

The point of this hearing is to place a marker for history, so that people decades down the road will have a record about what happened on January 6, 2021.

Judy Woodruff:

And, David, I couldn't help but notice your — the White House correspondent for your newspaper, Peter Baker, called it the most damning indictment ever presented against a president.

David Brooks:

Well, I will never disagree with Peter Baker.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:

Yes, I mean, listen, January 6 was shocking to live through, and it's shocking to relive through. And just to see the videos, again, to hear the testimony from the officers, to see the widows of those who died during and after, it's just a shocking thing.

I guess I'm curious about two things. One is, they — I was a little surprised — I guess they telegraphed this — how central they were going to put Trump, that this was a conspiracy, a seven-stage conspiracy that Donald Trump organized.

It sort of puts the onus on the Justice Department to indict him for sedition. I mean, it's really — that's — that was the case they made. So, if we have a congressional hearing — committee that finds this, and we don't indict the guy on sedition, what are we doing here?

And so they — they're not indicters, obviously, the politicians. But it puts a lot of onus on the Justice Department to either undermine or to say, well, he's morally responsible, but not legally responsible. But they really hit that point super hard.

Judy Woodruff:

And they — because they use the word coup. I mean, they said this was a coup. I mean, it doesn't get any more stark than that.

David Brooks:

Yes.

Judy Woodruff:

So, did the blows — did what they — did they do what they intended to do last night?

David Brooks:

Well, my problem is with their intent.

I think the committee is fundamentally ill-pointed. And I say that — I care most about now — I care a lot about what happened on January 6, 2021, but I care more about what happened on January 26, 2025, and 2029. And the committee to me seems to me, as protectors of our democracies, elected officials, they should be paying attention to that.

Right now, there are tens of millions of people who think the election is stolen, who think violence is justified. And a lot of them are running for office in local levels. How big are they? How much of a threat are they? What offices are they running for? And how should we understand the threat to the next January 6?

Second, I thought they were a little too parochial in just the way they conceived it all. This is not just happening here. This is happening in countries all around the world. The Republican Party looks a lot like parties in Poland, in Turkey, in Hungary.

This is not a conspiracy. It's a movement caused by social conditions. How serious is the threat to our democracy in 2024 and 2025? What — how close are we to violence? If you look at the conditions in other countries that have led to violence, how close are we to that? What is violence supposed to look like?

And so I would have liked to see a committee that focuses on the future and preventing a disaster, and not a committee that was focusing on who was texting Mark Meadows when.

Judy Woodruff:

What about these points?

Jonathan Capehart:

These are excellent points.

And these would be great questions that could be investigated and probed by a Senate committee while the House January 6 Committee is also doing its investigation. Both of these things are important.

But we have to remember that the name of the committee is the House Select Committee to Investigate the Attack on the U.S. Capitol. I know I have got it wrong. But it is very specific. And that is why they are looking at the text messages and the phone messages and video depositions. That's why this is happening.

That's not to discount what you're saying, because this is part of a — part of a larger movement, when you talk about the Great Replacement Theory and everything. These are global issues.

But this is the United States. And the world looks to American democracy as a model for how they should behave. And, if we don't — if we do not learn the who, the what, the where, and the why, and the how of how we came so close to losing it on January 6, 2021, then we won't be prepared for what could happen in '22 in the midterm elections, but most definitely in the presidential election in 2024.

What we're finding is — well, what we could find is that January 6, 2021, was the dress rehearsal for 2024. And I would like to know — I'd like to see the bread crumbs before we get to that point.

David Brooks:

Well, it'd be nice if there was a committee doing the things I have just been talking about. But no such committee exists.

And so we have a committee. Where do — where should leadership — choosing habits organize the committee was — the people had a decision to make. The leadership made a decision about how to organize it. And nobody is making that decision.

And nobody's focusing on the future threats. We need a 9/11 Commission for the future, not retroactive, after it goes wrong, but in the future.

I think a couple things happened. One is that people got Watergate in their minds. Watergate was a scandal that happened in private. And it was right to have a committee that exposed what was going — who said what to who in the Oval Office.

This all happened in public. Donald Trump did what he did in public. Those people were violent in public. We knew all that. I think the committee has usefully put it all together, and has moved the ball from the 95-yard line to the 99-yard line.

But they have not answered the sort of chasm questions of, how big a threat are we really under now, and what does that threat look like?

Judy Woodruff:

But you're — are you saying we don't need to go back and understand what happened in order to prevent it from happening again?

David Brooks:

No, I'm a history major.

(LAUGHTER)

Jonathan Capehart:

I'm with you, Judy.

Are you saying that?

David Brooks:

No, but…

Judy Woodruff:

No, I just…

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:

No, I'm not against that.

Judy Woodruff:

Yes.

David Brooks:

But if you're running the government, what's your priority right now?

To me, your priority preventing what you just said, that this turns into a preview of coming attractions. And they haven't chosen to do that.

And in the middle of all this — my paper ran a story they were trying to use this to refocus attention the midterms. Well, that's small-minded and ineffective. And so, to me, a little bit of politics does seem to have crept in.

Jonathan Capehart:

Yes, Judy.

It's unfortunate that we are looking at this — these hearings so aggressively through a political lens, where, for me, even though I know the story, I know how the story ends, I care to know the details, and I care to hear what they found, because it is so important, because we need to know what happened as a warning for what could come sooner, rather than later.

And I do think that millions of Americans are concerned that January 6, 2021, was a prelude to something even bigger, more sinister, and infinitely more dangerous than what we — the danger that we saw.

Judy Woodruff:

A lot — a lot more could be said and will be said about that.

But one other issue I do want to ask both of you about, David, and that is gun legislation. I know you both have talked about it. And here we are just days after the terrible school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, the funerals of these children.

What do you think? The House has voted some measures. It's sitting in the Senate? Do you think we're going to see anything?

David Brooks:

I'm a little hopeful we will see something.

And I say that because John Cornyn, the senator from Texas, the Republican, is negotiating. He's saying hopeful things from the Republican side. When Susan Collins and the moderates say hopeful things, maybe it'll happen. When you get somebody from leadership say hopeful things, it's probably a little more real.

And it's not going to be a big raft of legislation. But if we got red flag laws, and if we raised the purchasing age, that, to me, would be a step, a significant step, and nothing to be ashamed of. And so will that happen?

Chris Murphy, the senator from Connecticut, the Democrat, you — I read his quotes in the papers every day. It's like, it would be a miracle. No, I'm hopeful.

So he seems to be drifting a little more in the hopeful direction.

Judy Woodruff:

Yes.

What do you think?

Jonathan Capehart:

Look, I am always hopeful, but, as I have said many times before, I have seen this movie too many times before.

If you couldn't get expanded background checks, which was the one thing they were — Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey were trying to get done after Newtown, they couldn't get that done.

Now the focus is on red flag laws, but also raising — raising the minimum age. I'm glad Senator Cornyn is at the table. I'm glad Senator Mitt Romney is very hopeful about — and has changed his position, said, yes, let's raise the minimum age.

But until they do it, until I see that press release, the press conference, the vote, the vote in the Senate, I will reserve judgment. I want them to prove me wrong. Prove me wrong, Senate, that you won't do this, that you won't get something done on gun safety legislation.

Judy Woodruff:

I'm just trying to imagine what they say to parents who've lost their children across the country, people who've lost family members, if they — if they end up not doing anything.

What do they say? I don't know.

Jonathan Capehart:

That's on them, seriously. It is on them if they can't — they can't talk to these families.

We just saw hearings this week, Buffalo survivors, Uvalde, these parents just pouring out their soul.

Judy Woodruff:

The parents — the parents of the little girl who the mother had just brought her back to school after an appointment. She made the honor roll.

And she was gone.

Jonathan Capehart:

Yes.

Judy Woodruff:

It's hard. It's hard.

Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, thank you both.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks, Judy.