Jan. 6 Committee strays from mandate to pursue prosecutions | The Hill
By: Don Wolfensberger (The Hill)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol seemed to patch some previously-exposed cracks in its otherwise tightly-scripted wall of unity by a unanimous vote on Dec. 19 to approve its final report.
In reality, the cracks were signs the committee was sitting atop a widening seismic fault that threatened to swallow it in a chasm of endless recrimination. The committee had strayed from its original mandate to determine what happened, and, more importantly, to recommend how to prevent its recurrence. Instead, it was pursuing prosecutions it had no authority to conduct, at the expense of all else. Criminal referrals by Congress carry no special weight with the Department of Justice.
As I recounted in this space on June 20, the first crack in the wall appeared when committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) told reporters after a hearing on June 13 that the committee would not be making criminal referrals to the Justice Department, President Trump or anyone else. Almost immediately, committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) tweeted that the committee "had not issued a conclusion regarding criminal referrals" and would do so "at an appropriate time." Another committee member, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) had previously indicated in March that a criminal referral would be 'unproductive" because "it carries no legal weight."
The day after Thompson's remarks, a committee spokesperson issued a clarification on his behalf, saying the committee is "tasked with developing facts," and "has no authority to prosecute individuals." The statement went on to indicate the committee would gather "all relevant information, offer recommendations, and, if warranted, make criminal referrals." Other committee members chose to keep their powder dry and not weigh-in on the matter so soon.
When Thompson made his opening statement at the committee's final session last week, he left no question where he and his colleagues finally came down on the question: President Trump was responsible for summoning the mob to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, for the purpose of blocking the electoral count proceedings in Congress and must be held accountable under the law for his actions.
All subsequent "opening statements" by committee members bolstered the case being made to DoJ and the American people for holding the former president and his cohorts legally responsible for the Jan. 6 mayhem, citing four criminal statutes, including obstruction of official proceedings of Congress, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to make false statements, and inciting or assisting in an insurrection.
Another crack in the wall appeared more recently when the Washington Post reported on Nov. 23 that 15 current and former committee staffers were floored when they learned that Cheney was pushing for the report to focus almost entirely on Trump and his role in fomenting the Capitol riot, leaving other investigative findings on the cutting-room floor. That concern was also reportedly shared by some committee members.
As it turns out, their concerns were justified. The committee's authorizing resolution charged it, among other things, with recommending any changes in law, policies, and procedures to prevent future acts of violence and terrorism aimed at American democratic institutions, and to improve security measures at the Capitol. However, the final report, released late last Thursday, contains eight chapters devoted almost entirely to making the criminal case against the former president and his cohorts.
Only at the end of the report (pages 689-92), in what seems almost an afterthought (or ruptured appendix), does one find three and a quarter pages containing eleven, thin recommendations — the first of which is to reform and tighten the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which had already passed both houses and was inserted in the final omnibus appropriations bill cleared by Congress last Friday.
Perhaps it should not be too surprising that so much of the report recites the various actions by Trump and his allies to block, delay, distort and reverse the vote count since almost all testimony heard by the committee was from witnesses with some knowledge of Trump's role in trying to overturn the election. But, that almost exclusive emphasis falls far short of the committee's obligation to recommend measures to prevent it from happening again.
With the select committee expiring at noon next Jan. 3, as the 118th Congress is ushered-in, it remains to be seen how much follow-through there will be even on its paltry set of recommendations by the new Republican House. The vow by incoming Speaker-nominate Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to investigate the Jan. 6 committee speaks volumes to how seriously he and his GOP colleagues value the select committee's efforts and work product.
I am reminded, some two decades after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., including the likely targeting of Congress by the fourth plane brought down in Pennsylvania, that we apparently still don't have a plan in place for defending the Capitol against attacks and for swiftly moving members to more secure locations. Will we finally learn to do this any better this time?
Don Wolfensberger is a Congress Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, former staff director of the House Rules Committee, and author of, "Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays." The views expressed are solely his own.
Tags
Who is online
72 visitors
This is what happens when you run a partisan circus only looking for one thing.
But that won't stop many from claiming it does.
Please give us Donald Trump's defense for what he did on and around Jan 6.
The charges against him are very explicit, so he needs a specific defense.
Just saying it is a witch hunt is laughable.
How about we do that right after you give us the defense for the committee straying from the mandate.
Just calling it a witch hunt is not going nearly far enough. It was a Pelosi hand picked, mighty mental midget, TDS driven, partisan witch hunt whose outcome was never in doubt.
Please show us all of the evidence that the Jan 6th committee left out of their presentation that refutes their predetermined outcome. They only interviewed select witnesses that were highly coached to say exactly what the committee wanted to hear. All video footage was highly edited to only show what the committee wanted to be seen.
What charges are those? The committee cannot bring charges; and their recommendations to the DOJ mean jack shit. The DOJ will need to review all of the evidence- including that which the committee omitted. In a court of law Trump will have the right to present evidence which proves his innocence; and just how partisan and deranged the committee truly was.
Republicans are ready to impeach Garland over his two tier justice system; and trying to turn parents protesting school boards into domestic terrorists. Just think of the impeachment show Garland would face if he decides to bring charges against Trump and fails to get a conviction. They could call every last Jan 6th committee member (including Pelosi) in to testify about House protocols being ignored (like not seating two Republicans appointed to the committee); coaching witnesses; doctoring evidence; threatening witnesses. Using Pelosi rules Democrats can be shut out of the proceedings. They can monitor- if they behave- but that is it.
The allegations against Trump are very specific. Either give his side of the story about those allegations or admit you are just flapping your gums.
Why don't you list those allegations and present evidence that supports them, instead of typing nonsense?
I assume it might conflict with Trump saying "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
The fact that Trump never accepted the results of the 2020 election simply does not equate to inciting an insurrection. There were extremists groups there who had made plans well before the Trump speech and they have been held fully accountable. What hasn't been discussed is the lack of security at the Capitol. I expect we will be learning a lot about that next year.
Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, put restrictions on Guard deployments around the Capitol during the certification event because of the politics involved.
Let the chips fall where they may.
The lack of sufficient security at the Capitol on Jan 6 falls squarely on the shoulders of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
One could argue that the Capitol police are the Speaker's police force. Did you notice the day they were honored that many of them refused to shake hands with Mitch McConnell? McConnell was one of the first critics of the riot and of Trump for not putting a quick end to it. Evidently, he had an (R) after his name, thus the snub.
Let us give them credit for one thing: Their committee hearings always have a political purpose, while Republican chaired Committees only seek the truth. In this case it was using Trump in the midterms and a last final attempt to destroy a Trump candidacy. On the first point they were somewhat successful. Those midterms should have been a lot worse for them. To the latter point they were beyond successful, to the degree of beating a dead horse. Even if there is no indictment of Trump, I doubt he could win the GOP nomination at this point. Polls already indicate that. As a matter of fact some democrats are already preparing for 2024....Some say "We can do the same thing to DeSantis."
There is overwhelming evidence that Trump tried to steal the 2020 election. That is what matters, not the right's butthurt.
Please provide at least one link to prove that "overwhelming evidence", and use non-partisan sources. Thanks in advance.
Nope. You know how to read. There are dozens of easily accessible stories about the allegations. Either give Trumps side of the story about those specific allegations or be quiet.
Remember John, the accused does not have to prove innocence. It's on the prosecution to prove guilt. That should be easy in a DC Court when the defendant is named Trump. So what's the holdup on any form of indictment?
That's a roundabout way to say that you can't.
Translation: There's no "overwhelming evidence" I can provide from non-partisan sources.
Thanks, John!
And that's the other problem. They start by saying overwhelming evidence and when pressed it always turns to allegations. As if they don't want to realize or admit that allegations don't require any proof, just one's word against another.
From my own experience, when I ask someone to prove their overwhelming evidence all I get is no reply. SSDD
That is where the committee made it's mistake. They went after a person when their job was to find out what and why the protest happened and work out how to avoid it from happening again. Something they failed miserable.
I doubt it as well. Hell, most don't want Trump to run. Seems the only ones that want that are the Democrats and the left.
why wouldnt they want that ? a candidate or nominee they can easily defeat thats already been defeated before .
Well, next year they'll get a chance to explain it when it is they who are under the microscope.
Seems the only ones that want that are the Democrats and the left.
They've run against him for 3 election cycles now.
Oh they'll be crying again when their "evidence" gets shredded during cross examination.
They'll continue to run against him for a few more cycles. And he doesn't even have to be on the ballot.
Unfortunately, some of them will no longer be House members.
They'll continue to run against him for a few more cycles. And he doesn't even have to be on the ballot.
It's been a winning formula. They and their allies in the media get the average voter to forget about their troubles and vote against the grand bogeyman.
[DELETED]