Congress's Jan. 6 Investigation Looks Less and Less Credible
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Below is my column in The Hill on new evidence released by the House related to the January 6th riot. The J6 Committee fueled doubts about the official accounts by using only Democratically-appointed members and skewing the evidence. The new information further undermines the narrative pushed by both members and the media.
Here is the column:
On Jan. 6, 2021, the nation was rocked by the disruption of the certification of Joe Biden as our next president. With Donald Trump set to return to the White House in 2025, it is astonishing how much of that day remains a matter of intense debate.
Those divisions are likely only to deepen after a slew of recent reports that have challenged the selective release of information from the House January 6 Committee.
January 6 remains as much a political litmus test as it is a historical event. Whether you refer to that day as a riot or an insurrection puts you on one side or the other of a giant political chasm. I viewed the attack on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process, but I did not view it as an insurrection. I still don't.
It was a protest that became a riot when a woefully insufficient security plan collapsed. And that is a view shared by most Americans. One year after the riot, a CBS poll showed that 76 percent viewed it as a "protest gone too far."
A Harvard study also found that those arrested on that day were motivated by loyalty to Trump rather than support for an insurrection.
A recent poll found that almost half of the public (43 percent) felt that "too much is being made" of the riot and that it is "time to move on." Of course, that still leaves a little over half who view the day as "an attack on democracy."
The continued distrust of the official accounts of Jan. 6 reflects a failure of the House Democrats, and specifically former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to guarantee a credible and comprehensive investigation.
The House Select Committee to investigate January 6 was comprised of Democrat-selected members who offered only one possible view: that January 6 was an attempt to overthrow our democracy by Trump and his supporters. The committee hired a former ABC News producer to create a slick, made-for-television production that barred opposing views and countervailing evidence. The members, including Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney, played edited videotapes of Trump's speech that removed the portion where Trump called on his supporters to protest "peacefully."
The committee fostered false accounts, including the claim that there was a violent episode with Trump trying to wrestle control of the presidential limousine. The Committee knew that the key Secret Service driver directly contradicted that account offered by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.
While the Democrats insisted that Trump's speech constituted criminal incitement, he was never charged with that crime — not even by the motivated prosecutors who pledged to pursue such charges. The reason is that Trump's speech was entirely protected under the First Amendment. Such a charge of criminal incitement would have quickly collapsed in court.
Nevertheless, the Washington Post, NPR, other media and the committee members called Jan. 6 an "insurrection" engineered by Trump. Figures such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) insisted the committee had evidence that Trump organized a "coup" on Jan. 6, 2021. That evidence never materialized.
The lack of adequate security measures that day has long puzzled many of us. After all, there had been a violent riot at the White House before January 6, in which more officers were injured and Trump had to be moved to a secure location. The National Guard had to be called out to protect the White House, but those same measures (including a fence) were not ordered at the Capitol.
Two of the recent reports offered new details related to those questions.
One report confirmed that Trump did, in fact, offer the deployment of the National Guard in anticipation of the protest. The Jan. 6 Committee repeatedly dismissed this claim. After all, it would be a rather curious attempt at an insurrection if Trump was suggesting the use of thousands of troops to prevent any breach of Congress. The committee specifically found "no evidence" that the Trump administration called for 10,000 National Guard members to be sent to Washington, D.C., to protect the Capitol. The Washington Post even supposedly "debunked" Trump's comments with an award of "Four Pinocchios."
Yet evidence now shows that Trump personally suggested the deployment of 10,000 National Guard troops to prevent violence. For example, a transcript includes the testimony of former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato in January 2022 with Liz Cheney present. Ornato states that he clearly recalled Trump's offer of 10,000 troops.
Videotapes have also emerged showing Pelosi privately admitting that she and Democratic leadership were responsible for the security failure on Jan. 6.
Another new report from Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who chairs the House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight, shows that it was the Defense Department that delayed the eventual deployment of National Guard in the critical hours of the riot.
The evidence shows that, at 3:18 p.m., Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy "tells sheltering Members of Congress that he is not blocking the deployment of the National Guard and, while referencing the D.C. National Guard, shares that 'We have the green light. We are moving.'" However, the secretary of the Army's own timeline indicates that the DCNG did not physically leave the Armory until 5 pm.
That was the critical period for the riot. Around 2:10 p.m., people surged up the Capitol steps. Just an hour later, McCarthy said troops were on their way. At 4:17 p.m., Trump made his public statement asking rioters to stop — roughly an hour and a half later. Yet it was not until 5 pm that the troops actually left for the Capitol.
The House is also under greater scrutiny this week for new information on the shooting of the only person to die on Jan. 6. While Democrats have referred to many deaths on that day, the only person who died in the riot itself was Ashli Babbitt, a protester shot by Capitol Police.
I have long disagreed with the findings of investigations by the Capitol Police and the Justice Department in clearing Captain Michael Byrd for this shooting. The media lionized Byrd and, in sharp contrast to other police shootings during that period, blamed the deceased. Again, an unjustified shooting of a protester would not fit the media narrative.
The concerns over the shooting were heightened by the Justice Department's bizarre review and report, which notably did not state that the shooting was justified. Instead, it declared that it could not prove "a bad purpose to disregard the law" and that "evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent."
Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran who was clearly committing criminal acts of trespass, property damage and other offenses at the time she was shot. However, Babbitt was unarmed when she tried to climb through a broken window.
Byrd stated "I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are." In other words, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon. He took Babbitt's effort to crawl through the window as sufficient justification to kill her. It was not. And it is worth noting that Byrd could just as well have hit the officers standing just behind Babbitt.
The new report confirms that Byrd had prior disciplinary and training issues, including "a failed shotgun qualification test, a failed FBI background check for a weapon's purchase, a 33-day suspension for a lost weapon and referral to Maryland state prosecutors for firing his gun at a stolen car fleeing his neighborhood." In one incident, detailed in a letter from Loudermilk, Byrd was suspected of lying about the circumstances under which he shot at the fleeing car.
None of this means that Trump or even Babbitt are without fault in this matter. Trump's speech was clearly "reckless and wrong," and Babbitt herself was involved in that riot. However, these reports only further highlight what we still do not know about that day.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of " The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage ."
Tags
Who is online
473 visitors
If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck ...
turn the traitors loose, they can all be dealt with locally ...
"It was a protest that became a riot when a woefully insufficient security plan collapsed. And that is a view shared by most Americans. One year after the riot, a CBS poll showed that 76 percent viewed it as a "protest gone too far."
Peaceful protests that turn into riots are not treasonous; otherwise, a lot of leftwingers would be brought up on charges. Rational, sane, and normal people didn't fall the lies, propaganda, and faux outrage about this event, which temporarily delayed a government function. Members of Congress were never in danger.
That’s badass man, badass ….
4 years later and they're still trying to spin it....
Yep. Maybe what they need is another made for TV special staring all the celebrities that said they would leave the US if Trump won. Maybe they should have it in an airport so we can say goodbye to all of herm
4 years later and you are still buying the lies.
... the lies put forth by the testimony of trump insiders during the J6 hearings? yeah, go with that ...
The lies of the entire committee. Or are you good with tampering evidence and overreach in prosecution?
The chickens are coming home to roost and our friends on the left don’t like the smell.
Wait a minute...
The leftist narrative here, especially by one member, is that the Trump insiders were telling the truth at the J6 farce, therefore the J6 farce HAS to be legit.
Now, all of a sudden, they are liars....
I think talking points need to be compared. They are way off.
They can air it right after the special where Texas wanted to secede after Obama was elected.
4 years later and you're still repeating the lies.
That’s right, once again left wing crackpottery is busted.
Now you got it ….,,
Deflection fail, try again.
Stated Claim: Texas wanted to secede after Obama was elected.
No Google fact-check information was found for claim: 'Texas wanted to secede after Obama was elected.'
Ahhh, that's right, I forgot. They were just tourists.....
I've no doubt the treasonous revisionists will demand that school textbooks in their States that cover January 6th present the insurrectionists as "peaceful concerned American patriots who simply wanted a tour of the capital". Southern rightwing conservatives effectively whitewashed the reasons for the civil war turning it into a laudable fight for State Rights in their textbooks with barely a mention of slavery, no reason they won't try and whitewash January 6th. They don't want truth; they just want obedience to their rightwing ideology and every knee bent to their chosen Liar-in-Chief.
[deleted][✘]
[deleted][✘]
[deleted][✘]
[deleted][✘]
I am not sure if or how well the Fact Checker works. I would not rely on it.
When Obama won, "Secede" bumper stickers did indeed become quite popular in Texas.
Texit has been around since the Civil War, becoming more popular after national elections "gone wrong".
Here is the web site for the Texas nationalist Movement. Texas Nationalist Movement | TEXIT & Texas Independence
Texas secession movements - Wikipedia
Four for four ….. excellent moderation. Outstanding, just outstanding.
Just like in Chicago...Portland and Seattle. Got it.
"The House Select Committee to investigate January 6 was comprised of Democrat-selected members who offered only one possible view: that January 6 was an attempt to overthrow our democracy by Trump and his supporters."
Many on the left have been trying to force feed this narrative to America for going on 5 years now and most Americans keep spitting it out. You would have thought the election would have brought an end to the bullshit but it seems they just can's let it go.
Be prepared to be told just how little you know about the Jan 6th Committee work and reports.
And another one will bite the dust …. Nothing new when it comes to the left wing swamp.
And don't expect their claims to be backed up.
It's been two hours since you posted this and nothing yet.
I wonder what is wrong.
That is expected. If you don't agree with their conclusions it means you must be ignorant of the report. I will continue to ignore them as I always have.
you mean the report that is slowly being shown to be nothing more than a fictional story by the Democrats?
But, but, but...you don't know ANYTHING about the J6 report.
[deleted]
I know [✘] you have been told over and over that there is no way that you should ignore the R aids of Trump because, simply only on what they said, they are absolutely telling the truth, but now that they said in this report, they are liars.
That's what happens when you dive headfirst into the Kool-Aid. They blather on and on with their hair on fire and the ONLY thing shreik to back up these false claims is to "read the report" (that is now proven false).
Into the shallow end
Yep, not surprising. It was get Trump at all costs. The truth was one of those costs they were willing to pay
When people show you, over the course of years, that they know little to nothing about a subject matter it is perfectly fine to assume they know little. Anyone who has been "accused" of knowing very little is free , ant any time, to prove the accusers wrong. Frankly, that has happened yet.
By your opinion. And you constantly insult others for their supposed lack of knowledge based on your view of things. You have yet to accept any viewpoint that doesn't match up with what you want.
I'm pretty sure it was exposed that it was more than Trumps speech that was edited / tampered with.
Hey, Democrats, your one trick pony died on Nov. 5th. Now what?
Right? I mean, I am sure trump didn't delay at all because the innocent are always first to get to court..... Oh wait.
So, your crying about something that is 100% legal for a defense to do?
Jonathan Turley is a disgrace, not only to the legal profession, but perhaps to the human race.
Ashley Babbit broke through a locked and barricaded door, a door that was located 20 ft away from the entrance to floor of the House. The guards job was to protect the Representatives.
Was the guard supposed to engage in a fist fight with Babbitt? What she won ? She would have removed the barricade and the mob would have flooded in.
Turley is a clown in this column. I dont know what happened to this guy over the last 10 years of Trump but his sense of right and wrong is long gone.
Maybe Putins' got some dirt on him as well. He used to be normal, something changed in him.
Groundhog Day on Newstalkers……
.
..
Tell us why the guards that were on the same side of the doors as the protesters, who were not harmed by at least 20 protesters including Babbit were suddenly withdrawn?
I imagine they felt outnumbered and didnt want to start shooting people which probably would have led to them being overpowered and shot with their own guns.
Ashley Babbitt was violently breaking through a locked and barricaded door when she was shot. There was nothing whatsoever improper or surprising about the guard shooting her. What was he supposed to do, let her in where she could open the door for the rest of them? The idea that she was some sort of victim has been crazy from the beginning.
District of Columbia | Three Years Since the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol (justice.gov)
So, 140 "guards that were on the same side of the doors as the protesters" were in fact assaulted and injured. What makes you believe there were just a bunch of random guards standing around unaffected as the insurrectionists broke through the door and tried to gain access to where our elected representatives were being evacuated? Babbit was warned multiple times and yet still attempted to violently break through onto the floor of congress and got put down, the capital officer did his job and protected those he was responsible for, end of story.
More officers were hospitalized from injuries at a random BLM riot in Chicago that you never heard of than on Jan 6th.
I have in fact heard of that riot and it was reprehensible, though it wasn't any sort of attempted insurrection and did not threaten our democracy in the slightest. Trying to say "Well 49 officers were attacked by "you people" and 18 of them went to the hospital in a riot that wasn't attacking the capital trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power but that should be equivalent to the 140 officers who were attacked by "our people" in our attempt to overthrow the constitutional transfer of power and install our Dear Leader into power because only 15 officers were hospitalized, that's 3 less than that other riot! Nanny nanny boo boo, ha ha! Slam!" is beyond ignorant and borders of fucking insane.
Just about every argument the right makes these days is some level of whataboutism.
Neither was Jan 6th.
‘Well 49 officers were attacked by "you people’
How many officers were attacked, injured and sent to the hospital by ‘you people’ during the 2020 riots dubbed as The Summer of Love 2020?
I can assure you it was far more than 49.
Jan 6 was a far less riot than summer of love.
They weren't armed and had been holding the protesters away from the doors for over 5 minutes, they were not harmed! They could have been overpowered at any time. The protesters did not break down the door until the guards left.
The guards between the doors and the protesters where Babbit was shot, were never harmed, no one touched them, I watched the video over 50 times. They were verbal abused but, no violence.
Ah....I watched it on video, I can't remember if there were 3 or 4 security guards (young kids) holding back the protesters. While in the background you could see the chamber behind (50ft maybe 100ft away) them being evacuated. At some point, someone gave them the order to leave their post, at the same time a swat time was coming up behind Babbit when she went through the door and was shot.
By who? You couldn't hear anything in that vestibule, it was chaos. Babbit was held back by these 3 or 4 security guards, which she wasn't happy about but, she never laid a hand on any of them. Had the capital police officer stood out in front of the doors with his weapon displayed no one would have come through the doors.
The capital officer is a pussy, he shot her without warning from the side, she posed no threat to him whatsoever.
She wasn't breaking into the floor of congress; she was going into a hallway. Even had Babbit went free there was no one left for her to try and stop any vote.
I've never 'obsessed' over January 6th, but I have taken it serious as well it should be. Trying to "poo poo" a clear attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power in this nation is frankly cowardly if not treasonous. It implies either one doesn't give a shit about our country and constitution or are actually rooting for this nation's downfall so that some white conservative Christian nation can be "rebuilt" making America great "again" which was the clear purpose of the insurrectionists that day.
Not taking January 6th seriously just begs for it to happen again, and if this becomes no big deal you really never will know which group may try it next time, perhaps it will be one you disagree with and you'll realize how serious this really is.
what the fuck ? First of all, the door to the House floor wasnt 50 or 100 ft away, it was 20 -25 ft away. And it is not just a "hallway" it is a lobby, like a theatre lobby, you go through a door and you are in.
No one was allowed through that barricaded door that they tried to bash in. What was Babbiit thinking? That she would be allowed to violently bash through a barricaded door and enter the House where there were members? If they were innocent "protesters" when they got to that blocked and barricaded door they would have stopped. She climbed through a broken window.
Test reply to Texan.
Jan 6, abortion and Trump is a meanie ……. Great platform eh?
Especially given that more and more the Democrats narrative of the whole thing is being proven wrong.
Voting by misinformed people does not change facts.
You dont even know what the Democrats narrative is.
Ah, the personal attack. Thank you for confirming you can't refute a goddamn thing I've said.
I never said they were innocent protesters; the question is why were the guards removed that had kept them there for over 5 minutes when they were not harmed??????? Last time I checked, it's not a death sentence to protest your government. They didn't gun down BLM protesters that broke into government buildings.
Incontrovertible evidence that you can fix ignorance with facts and education, but you just can't fix stupid. Stupid people don't care that there was an attempted insurrection, they don't care about the constitution because they only know one or two amendments anyway and refuse to accept anything that doesn't conform to their religious conservative ideological tilt.
I always hear about the insurrection and the overthrow of the government. Tell me what government would we have, had Trump been successful in overturning the election?
One where elections don't matter, and the constitution would no longer be the law of the land but a suggestion. We would have set the precedent that whichever party has the most violent supporters willing to attack the capital if an election doesn't go their way can seize power and face no consequences which would become the new normal.
Right, they are the ones who are misinformed.
All of the close to 77 million of them that voted for Trump.
And Democrats/leftists wonder why they have lost all credibility.
So everybody that disagrees with your heavily slanted view of the world is "stupid".
Riiiiight.
WTF? That’s the choice??? Neither is ok, and whichever one you call it, that crowd was 100% egged on by Donald Trump.
That sounds a lot like victim blaming. It’s security’s fault that thousands of maniacs stormed the Capitol, destroyed doors and windows, assaulted cops and threatened Congress members? Turley’s moral compass is broken.
It shouldn’t be puzzling to anyone. The simple counting of electoral votes has never required extra security. We have spent almost 250 years bragging about our quadrennial peaceful transfer of power. Why would we need extra security?
It's the first choice of several, but it does probably mark a significant political divide pretty accurately.
"Absolutely terrible non-insurrection" is one of the available options.
That's a completely fair point.
So much bullshit in one place it makes one want to give up.
I can't tell you the number of times I have read most of the commenters on this very page saying something to the effect of, 'If you didn't want to be shot, don't join a riot/talk back to a cop," et al. Yet to the man they are defending Ashley Babit's right to jump through the window that was just smashed out. Kind of silly, in my estimation.
This one though takes the cake (from the article)...
... because the reports that I have seen are full of cherry-picked information and do not exonerate Trump in any instance for his role in the lead up to or during the riots.
Whether or not it is defined as a riot or an insurrection is a fine point and people will always be in disagreement. I think that the lexicographical debate is beside the point and distracting from the point (which is why Turley writes whole articles about it) that it was and is Trumps fault that the riot/insurrection happened at all.
Was it really agreed to that " a protest that became a riot when a woefully insufficient security plan collapsed"? According to the americanmilitarynews.com :
Snicker.
Wow. I guess it really matters why some Trump supporters decided to beat, smash, and ram their way into the Capitol while Uniformed Police Officers were trying to prevent it. Let's take a look at what that Harvard study found.
So they believed his lies and were there to see that he did not have to leave the presidency, you know, "Stop the Steal".
I would say that the "more than half" have it right.
Not really. It represents the Republicans continued obfuscations and deliberate attempts to discredit the investigation and it's findings. The whole of the Republican Party has been coopted by a lust to gather and remain in power in the name of Trump, a hateful and vindictive man. Poor suckers. At least 74,441,420 people saw that he was selling bullshit on a stick. I feel really sorry for those 76,916,849 people who envisioned him as their savior.
Well, that is what 63% of Americans thought it was one year later. The supporters who were arrested were attempting to subvert our democratic institutions ensuring that Trump remained in power. That is what "overthrowing our democracy" means and that is shown by the results listed on this very page. Trump called them. Trump wound them up. Trump set them on the Capitol to "Stop the Steal". How on earth anyone could say that Trump is even fit to be president is beyond me.
One or two mentions of peace do not outway two hours of diatribe about how the election was stolen and "If you don't fight like hell, you won't have a country".
Well, I have wasted enough time on on Turley and his slavering minions.
Happy Thanksgiving.
And yet you did. Expansively.
same to you