Checks and Balance: Insurrection retrospection

Checks and Balance from The Economist

The Economist

Politics, News & Politics, News, Us Politics

4.6 • 1.7K Ratings

🗓️ 24 June 2022

⏱️ 49 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

After conducting more than 1,000 interviews and reviewing over 140,000 documents, the House of Representatives’ January 6th committee is now presenting its findings. Yet much of what it is investigating happened publicly: the violence in the Capitol was live-streamed and the conspiracy to overturn the election happened in the open. Even so, most Americans have either moved on or misinterpreted the riot. What is the purpose of the committee? What new information has it revealed—and can it make a difference?

Former federal and state prosecutor Danya Perry examines the possible criminal consequences for top-ranking officials. And strategist Sarah Longwell shares how Republican voters are receiving the committee. John Prideaux hosts with Idrees Kahloon and James Astill.

Since recording this episode, the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, its landmark ruling which protected the right to an abortion. Last month, we examined what America would look like if Roe was struck down.

For full access to print, digital and audio editions, as well as exclusive live events, subscribe to The Economist at economist.com/uspod. Subscribers can also sign up to our “Checks and Balance” newsletter at economist.com/newsletters.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Imagine sweeping through green fields, floating five feet above ground, sun on your face as you slide by on track to your destination, not a car in the world, as you simply lean back.
0:17.0	And before you know it, you're there.
0:20.0	This is how travel should feel, and on our trains, it does.
0:25.0	Avanti West Coast, feel good travel.
0:40.0	This episode of the podcast is about the January 6th Committee.
0:44.0	But just as we had finished recording it, the news dropped that the Supreme Court had as expected overturned Roby Wade.
0:52.0	I thought it'd be really helpful before getting into the January 6th discussion to talk to me and Ridge who covers abortion for the economist.
0:59.0	Me and what are your thoughts?
1:01.0	We expected this to happen.
1:03.0	It has happened, but it still feels momentous.
1:06.0	It does.
1:07.0	And even though we were given fair warning by the leaked draft, which was published on May the second.
1:13.0	Some people, I think a lot of people have hoped that it would be softened somewhat and it doesn't appear to have been.
1:18.0	Yes, it shares the same no holds barred approach to this issue that the draft did.
1:23.0	I mean, I was struck reading it quickly very early on.
1:26.0	There's a comparison of Roby Wade to Plessy V Ferguson, which of course was the Supreme Court decision in 1896, which held that racial segregation was constitutional.
1:36.0	And I think that's a really good question.
1:38.0	I think that's a good question.
1:39.0	I think that's a good question.
1:40.0	I think that's a good question.
1:41.0	I think that's a good question.
1:42.0	I think that's a good question.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Economist, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of The Economist and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.