The January 6th committee will hold its second major hearing on Monday. That followed a primetime production for the first one back on Thursday evening.

What was actually learned during their big opener? The answer remains not much. They gave speeches, showed videos we’ve already seen, and once again brought a USCP officer in to give an emotional account of the violence that occurred.

Yet, these hearings are not supposed to be a rehash of everything we already know, nor are they supposed to be about political grandstanding. Rather, they are supposed to connect the dots back to Donald Trump, with evidence of criminal liability for coordinating the entry of the Capitol Building. We already know Liz Cheney thinks the orange man is bad and morally responsible for the unrest. But did he actively plan and coordinate it? That’s the charge. Where’s the evidence?

If such evidence existed, you’d have expected the committee to use its two hours of primetime to lay it out. That didn’t happen, and it looks as if the second hearing will be more of the same.

Donald Trump’s baseless claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and how it fueled the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection are the planned focus Monday of the second in a series of June hearings by a House select committee.

Live updates here: https://t.co/B3exEhxnUf

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 13, 2022

Monday’s Jan. 6 hearing to focus on Trump’s “dereliction of duty” during Capitol attack https://t.co/jUTpVE2YXI

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 12, 2022

In other words, we are going to get the same presentation that was given last year by the committee alleging that Trump knew he was lying when he talked about the election being stolen.

Even then, it’s clear that they will use supposition to come to that conclusion. Just because former-AG Bill Barr or someone else in Trump’s orbit told him his claims were wrong does not mean Trump believed they were wrong. Forget about any judgment on whether the president should have believed them. I’m just noting the obvious, which is that his being told something doesn’t mean he accepted it.

Besides, I think there’s ample evidence showing that Trump does believe the election was stolen and that when he says that, he means it, regardless of how one feels about the veracity of his claim.

Past that, I think these arguments about what was in Trump’s head remain largely irrelevant in the context of this committee. The committee’s goal was not billed as litigation of Trump’s assertions about the election. Further, even if they could prove he meant to lie, that does absolutely nothing to show any planning or coordination, or even foreknowledge of the conflict that transpired.

So what are we doing here? This will now be two hearings where the January 6th committee has provided nothing to support its central thesis. At some point, and that point was last Thursday, it becomes obvious that they’ve got nothing of real value to offer and are just using taxpayer dollars to present a political narrative.

If there is evidence Trump directed protesters to enter the Capitol, show that evidence. Instead, we continue to get hype and no substance, and that typically means there is no substance. The committee is stalling, trying to wring whatever political capital they can out of this, knowing they will fail to prove their chief allegation.