As promised, the Jan. 6 Committee just aired testimony from former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann, ex-Mark Meadows aide Cassidy Hutchinson and Trump’s director of the White House presidential personnel office, John McEntee — all of whom outlined what they knew about Republican requests for pardons from Trump.

Our TPM Journalism Fund drive this year is really important. Critical for the organization. We’re off to a good start. But we really want to get to the 3/4 of the way there mark today. That’s $150,000 raised. If you could help us get there today I and we all would greatly appreciate it. It just takes a minute of your time, literally. Just click right here.

For most of us this is not new information. But the testimony late this afternoon brings out in a particularly vivid way how little Trump cared about the fate of the country or the constitution or really anything else besides what he saw as his own political well-being. That’s clear enough. But beyond that he had a hard time even understanding the question. “What do I have to lose?” the President asked, according to the participants in the Oval Office meeting. It’s basically, why not burn the country down? What do I have to lose?

Again, this is not a surprise to most of us. But I haven’t seen it captured so vividly.

A new episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast is live! This week, Josh and Kate discuss the latest Jan. 6 hearing and the Senate gun deal.

You can listen to the new episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast here.

Point 1: If you’re watching the hearings today, consider and remember this: Let’s give these guys credit. They’re conservatives. Trump appointees. But they held the line. They refused to play ball under a lot of pressure. But authorizing law enforcement investigations of palpably absurd stories is itself really, really bad. That’s the basis of the great majority of law enforcement corruption: standing up bogus investigations to impugn the reputations or otherwise hurt people. That’s really bad on many, many fronts. In the situation in which these guys found themselves I think there’s a good argument that they went with the least bad option. But that option is itself really, really bad.

Point 2: One of the things we’re seeing today is this effort to stock new unknown loyalists into the executive departments after it was already clear the President had lost and that it was a lame duck administration. We’ve known a lot of this story. But we found out significantly more today. The only time this happens in normal situations is that you sometimes have caretaker appointees come in because the top appointee leaves before the President’s last day in office. Sometimes it’s simply to burnish someones future resume. They can say they were “acting such and such” for a brief time. Not great maybe but essentially no harm. But it doesn’t work like this. When they were already only in a caretaker role they were restocking the departments to further the coup.

But here’s another point. It wasn’t only at DOJ. There was something very similar happening at the Pentagon. Those new appointees don’t seem to have played direct roles in the coup as it played, though I think that’s still an open question. But it sure seemed like they might at the time. At the end of the day coups almost always come down to control of the armed forces.