The best place to start is the widespread notion going into the war that we were witnessing a clash between a great power controlled by an experienced, savvy—some even said brilliant—leader and a small state weakened by national division and led by a second-rate former comedian. This great power–small power dynamic was accepted practically universally among a group of scholars and analysts who have proclaimed themselves “realists.”,,,,,

This all sounded eminently reasonable, but then Russia invaded Ukraine and the great power–small power dichotomy was revealed to be the opposite of realism. The fundamental problem was that Russia was exposed at the start as not a “great” power at all. Having sent in almost all of its frontline military units, the Russian army has seized only 20 percent of Ukraine—a far cry from its initial efforts to take Kyiv and subjugate the entire country—and is suffering horrific losses in casualties and equipment. It’s already desperately trying to regenerate its forces by finding soldiers wherever it can, even allowing citizens as old as 49 to enlist, while throwing more and more older, second-rate equipment into the fight.

Russian strength has shown itself to be so overrated that it gives us an opportunity to rethink what makes a power “great.” Going into the war, Russia’s military capabilities—including a large nuclear stockpile and what was thought to be one of the biggest and most-advanced armed forces in the world—were pointed to as the reason for its strength. What this war might be showing us, however, is that a military is only as strong as the society, economy, and political structure that assembled it. In this case, Russia was nowhere near a great power, but in fact a deeply flawed, in many ways weakening, state......

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has not been a situation in which a great power assaulted a smaller neighbor. It’s an example of a large, deeply flawed power invading a smaller, but very committed one. The balance of power between the two does still matter—but what makes up that balance needs to be much better understood.

Gymnast Simone Biles of Spring has been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Biden.

The medal is considered the highest civilian honor in the U.S. and is presented to individuals who have made “exemplary contributions to the prosperity, values, or security of the United States, world peace, or other significant societal public or private endeavors.”

Biles is the most decorated gymnast in history, with a combined total of 32 Olympic and World Championship medals.

She has become a prominent advocate for athletes’ mental health and safety, children in the foster care system, and victims of sexual assault.

Gymnast Simone Biles of Spring has been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Biden.

The medal is considered the highest civilian honor in the U.S. and is presented to individuals who have made “exemplary contributions to the prosperity, values, or security of the United States, world peace, or other significant societal public or private endeavors.”

Biles is the most decorated gymnast in history, with a combined total of 32 Olympic and World Championship medals.

She has become a prominent advocate for athletes’ mental health and safety, children in the foster care system, and victims of sexual assault.

The New York Times published a quote that stood out:

“Until this point, we had not seen proof that he knew about the violence,” said Daniel Goldman, a former federal prosecutor who served as the lead counsel during Mr. Trump’s first impeachment and is currently running for Congress in New York. “The testimony made very clear he was not only entirely aware of the threat, but wanted armed people to march to the Capitol. He was even willing to lead them.”

That’s a handy and accurate summary: There’s compelling evidence that Trump summoned enraged followers, assembled an armed mob just south of the White House, filled them with lies, and had every intention of joining them as they descended on the nation’s seat of government.

To be sure, this seems like the sort of thing that might be of interest to federal law enforcement. But as we digest the revelations, I have a related question: What exactly was Trump prepared to do once he arrived at the Capitol?......

Viewers saw Hutchinson during a previously recorded deposition, when she was asked whether other White House officials indicated what the then-president hoped to accomplish after arriving on the Hill. She responded:

“I remember hearing a few different ideas discussed with — between [then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows] and [Republican Rep.] Scott Perry, Mark and Rudy Giuliani. I don’t know which conversations were elevated to the president. I don’t know what he personally wanted to do when he went up to the Capitol that day. You know, I — I know that there were discussions about him having another speech outside of the Capitol before going in. I know that there was a conversation about him going into the House chamber at one point.”

That’s a rather striking detail. There were “conversations” — presumably in advance of Jan. 6 — involving the then-White House chief of staff, the then-president’s campaign lawyer, and a Republican member of Congress allied with the White House. They kicked around ideas about Trump, after arriving at the Capitol with his followers, giving another speech, possibly even inside the House chamber, to which he had not been invited.

Ty Cobb, who represented Trump in the White House during Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, said this situation is much different than with Mueller. At the time of the Mueller investigation, Cobb believed Trump shouldn't be charged with any crime -- and the President wasn't.

Nor did Cobb believe Mueller's investigation was warranted. Now, that is not the case.

"Here there are many damning facts," said Cobb, who pointed to Hutchinson's testimony that Trump knew his supporters were armed on January 6, riled them up, then appeared to concur with them chanting to hang the vice president as worthy of prosecutors' attention.

If that "isn't insurrection, I don't know what is," he said Wednesday.

People gather to watch the hearing of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack
People gather to watch a hearing of the Jan. 6 committee on June 9, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Tasos Katopodis / Getty Images)
More than 13 million Americans tuned in to watch bombshell testimony from a former White House aide this week, making the Jan. 6 committee's latest hearing its second-most-viewed thus far.

The Tuesday afternoon hearing, which the committee announced just a day ahead of time, featured 25-year-old Cassidy Hutchinson, who served as an aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Her dramatic testimony attracted 13,231,000 viewers across all major networks, including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC, according to numbers from Nielsen, a ratings firm. This total topped the previous four hearings, which won audiences of about 10 million to 11 million people. The first Jan. 6 hearing, on June 9, drew about 20 million viewers, but it aired in prime time.

Although the numbers indicate that millions of people are watching the hearings, it's not yet clear how many Americans will ultimately tune in — the hearings are slated to continue into July — or what conclusions they will form. In 1954, about 80 million Americans (out of a much smaller U.S. population of about 169 million people) followed the series of hearings that led to communist-hunting Sen. Joseph McCarthy's downfall. About 3 in 4 American households watched at least part of the 1973 Watergate hearings, according to Nielsen estimates.

Although a majority of Americans — 58% — say they are following news about the work of the Jan. 6 committee, only 26% are following it very closely, according to a poll released last week by Quinnipiac University. Just 40% of Americans report that the Jan. 6 attacks had a major effect on their worldview, a Politico-Morning Consult survey found.

After Hutchinson’s devastating testimony, numerous media outlets — including The Post — also reported Tuesday afternoon that unnamed sources at the U.S. Secret Service claimed agents in Trump’s vehicle would dispute her account that Trump assaulted an agent or grabbed the steering wheel after being told that he couldn’t go to the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Certainly the House Jan. 6 Select Committee should hear from all relevant witnesses under oath. But Bobby Engel, the head of the president’s protective detail who was in the car at the time, had already spoken at length to the committee. He confirmed the gravamen of her account — that Trump was irate about not be able to going to the Capitol.

The media lack any basis to parse Hutchinson’s claim that Trump lunged toward the agent, which might not mean that Trump assaulted him, as the Secret Service sources put it. The Post’s Carol D. Leonnig also provided the desperately needed context Tuesday evening that many Secret Service agents, including Engel, “are viewed as being aligned with Donald Trump.”.....

Creating a false equivalence between detailed testimony under oath and an anonymous source vouching for Trump is misleading at best and at worse serves the Trump camp’s disinformation machine. Be prepared for more of this kind of frenzied chatter as the mainstream media fall back into bad habits — repeating Trump’s lies, shrugging at the mind-bending complicity of GOP officials such as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and treating statements from known Republican dissemblers as equally credible as those with no motive to lie and no history of disinformation.

The media would better serve the public if it followed two rules: First, unless they have new factual information that meet the standards for anonymous sourcing, respectable publications should not afford anonymity to those offering takes from Trump’s camp. Second, if a source is going to contest testimony under oath, the outlet should determine if the source already met with the Jan. 6 committee and consider the credibility and relevance of the source’s story (or testimony).