The Jan. 6 committee's big reveal hasn't happened yet
By: Yahoo
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Jan. 6 select committee's last — and most important — act won't happen in a hearing room.
It will come when one of the panel's last, beleaguered staffers hits the "publish" button on its collection of evidence compiled over 18 months of investigation, material that still remains almost entirely secret.
The committee is sitting on a stockpile of nearly 1,200 witness interview transcripts and reams of hard-won documents about Donald Trump's attempt to derail the peaceful transfer of power. While the select panel's nine members gathered on Monday to refer evidence of Trump's potential crimes to the Justice Department, that raw information — not the showmanship of a final in-person public meeting — will tell the story the committee has labored to piece together.
The 160-page executive summary, which precedes a final panel report set for release as soon as Wednesday, hints at the extraordinary range of documents the committee collected. It references at least 30 "productions" of documents from various witnesses and agencies, including White House visitor logs, Secret Service radio frequencies and the Department of Labor, where then-Secretary Eugene Scalia produced a Jan. 8, 2021, memo seeking to call a Cabinet meeting to discuss the transfer of power.
"The select committee intends to make public the bulk of its nonsensitive records before the end of the year," the panel's chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), said Monday. Thompson has stressed that the taxpayer-funded investigation's materials should be made available to the public: "These transcripts and documents will allow the American people to see the evidence we have gathered and continue to explore the information that has led us to our conclusions."
The committee opened its final meeting by urging accountability for the former president and allies involved in his attempt to subvert the 2020 election. Yet the panel's members acknowledged, as they have throughout the probe, that an ultimate judgment would have to be delivered by DOJ and others after they turn out the lights.
Story continues
Yet crucial questions remain about which evidence the panel will treat as off-limits to the public — including whether it will post hundreds of hours of video interviews alongside its transcripts. Thompson has also emphasized that transcripts will be redacted to exclude private information and law enforcement or national security-related details. And some witnesses who requested anonymity would receive it, Thompson has said.
Call records, with the exception of ones that the committee has found relevant to the probe, would likely remain secret as well, according to the chair.
Even so, the panel's introductory materials gave tantalizing clues about what's to come. The committee's executive summary referenced just over 80 of the panel's interviews and documents collected from 34 agencies or witnesses; among them, Christoffer Guldbrandsen, a documentarian who captured footage of Trump ally Roger Stone, and Bernard Kerik, who advised Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani in his bid to collect evidence to challenge the 2020 results.
The summary also reflects voluminous contacts among key players in Trump's alleged plot that were not previously known but could be of interest to federal prosecutors. For example, the document describes numerous contacts that then-DOJ officials Jeffrey Clark and Ken Klukowski had with Trump campaign attorney John Eastman in the closing days of 2020 and into early 2021.
In addition, the summary casts doubt on the testimony of some select panel witnesses — like former Secret Service and Trump White House aide Tony Ornato and former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, who the committee said were not as forthcoming as others who spoke to it.
During her testimony, McEnany had disputed the allegation that Trump was resistant to calling off the mob, but the summary noted that her former deputy Sarah Matthews had told the panel otherwise. Ornato, who played a potentially key role as a witness to an alleged altercation between Trump and his security detail on Jan. 6, drew similar scrutiny after telling the committee he could not recall relaying the account of the altercation despite others' testimony to the contrary.
"The Committee is skeptical of Ornato's account," the panel added in a footnote.
The summary nods to even more material the Jan. 6 panel has kept under wraps for months.
The committee repeatedly noted that as it closes its doors, DOJ and local prosecutors in Fulton County, Ga., appear to have surpassed its ability to collect information that witnesses sought to safeguard — either by pleading the Fifth Amendment or invoking other privileges that lawmakers simply could not overcome.
"The Committee recognizes that the Department of Justice and other prosecutorial authorities may be in a position to utilize investigative tools, including search warrants and grand juries, superior to the means the Committee has for obtaining relevant information and testimony," the panel concluded.
On Friday, a federal judge unsealed a secret grand jury opinion that underscored this point: DOJ obtained thousands of emails from key Trump allies like Clark, Klukowski and Eastman, months earlier than had been previously known.
The committee, which has largely resisted sharing its evidence with the Justice Department to this point, also noted that it had delivered some of its evidence to federal prosecutors already. The committee also encouraged prosecutors to issue grand jury subpoenas for Republican lawmakers who refused to comply with its summonses, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who the committee said had key evidence of Trump's mindset during and after the attack on the Capitol.
And there's more than prosecutors watching the panel's work.
"The entire nation knows who is responsible for that day," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Monday. "Beyond that, I don't have any immediate observations."
Burgess Everett contributed to this report.
Tags
Who is online
46 visitors
When its all said and done Trump will be indicted for crimes related to his attempt to steal the 2020 election.
To not indict him would be a national travesty, and I dont think the DOJ wants to bear responsibility for a travesty.
If they don't indict, it means they don't believe they have a winnable case.
So will the committee releasing all this information interfere with a DOJ investigation and additional action (not to mention providing additional info to Trump's lawyers who will use it in any trial if the DOJ does not introduce and they feel it helps the defense ) or will this release of information be purely a political act to further poison Trump in the minds of the voter? I know you want an indictment but past history shows us that federal prosecutors are hesitant to press charges if there is sufficient doubt that they can win the case. Time will tell but I still have doubts that the DOJ will actually bring charges.
No one can defend Trumps actions surrounding the election and jan 6. No one. If they could be defended we would have heard it all already. All you guys do is complain the the investigation is "partisan", as if that would invalidate all the evidence.
He is guilty as hell and if you think not please tell us , in detail, why not.
He's guilty as hell, but we are going to hide all the evidence except what we think really shows his guilt!
You can take a crack at demonstrating Trumps innocence if you want.
This is beyond ridiculous.
This desire to protect Trump at all costs and in the face of incontrovertible evidence is rather sickening , but not at all surprising.
No one is saying that he didn't commit some alleged crimes, but so far, from all we've seen and heard for the past six years, there is not any credible evidence to convict him of these charges.
Whatever the outcome, I and many others want him gone. You've never provided any incontrovertible evidence, just unsupported allegations.
So you acknowledge that Trump was wrong (not necessarily criminal, but wrong as in not right) to engage in his Big Lie campaign? And since you have complained that this question is ambiguous here again I list specifics:
Nowhere in my comment was I defending him, this issue is that you refuse to accept anything said that is not in 100% agreement with you. All I asked was if the committee releasing their information to the public help or hinder the DOJ investigation, or conversely is this simply another political act to poison the minds of the voter against Trump? Then I stated my opinion that I don't think the DOJ will actually press charges.
Just because I'm not jumping up and down, foaming at the mouth and demanding that Trump be drawn and quartered does not indicate I'm defending him in any way.
Why would a partisan committee want to poison Trump in the minds of the voter? Don't you think D partisans want Trump to be the GoP nominee to almost ensure they win the general?
My concern is that if he is indicted, tried and found innocent it will be evidence of innocence, will in the eyes of his redneck base and others exonerate him, discredit his accusers and bolster his reputation to the extent that he could conceivably gain enough support among ignorant American voters to retake the White House in 2014.
He would be found not guilty, if anything. But you have a good point. If Trump is tried and found not guilty he will be exonerated. And judging from what his supporters will believe in defiance of overwhelming evidence, this would surely convince them that Trump was right all along.
We have a critical thinking problem in the USA.
My position, however, is that politics should not distort justice (even though it routinely does). Not holding our highest officials accountable cannot end well for us.
We have seen Democrats trying to tear down Trump since he first announced his candidacy back in 2015. The first talk of impeachment was before he even took the oath of office. So I do believe that a partisan committee would want to do everything they could to remove Trump from running again. There are no doubt some who would like to see him run again in 24 as they see him able to divide the party and make their re-election easier. He could do more damage to the Republican brand if he ran as an independent I believe. Either solution I believe would provide a benefit to the Democrat candidates.
Time will tell, I'm not 100% sure he could win a Republican primary. For myself I would rather he not run again but just sink quietly into the background. But I cannot see his ego allowing for that.
And you are both right. If the DOJ does bring charges and somehow Trump is not found guilty, there is a large base in the Republican party (and I suspect a segment of Independents also) who would view that as total vindication of everything Trump has stated over the past few years. Scary times indeed, we shall see how it all unfolds.
You find that to be unusual? That is how our political parties operate. Look at our own little microcosm here on NT. Partisans will only see bad in the 'other side'.
If they were operating in a pure partisan fashion they would want Trump to be the GoP nominee.
If he is the GoP nominee, he will lose. That is a lot of damage and it continues to ruin the GoP image. If he runs as an independent he will be a spoiler for the GoP nominee. That is a lot of damage but at least the GoP will be on a path to eventually recover from the stench of Trump.
I am not certain either. What I am certain about, however, is that he has a chance to do so. Those who support / defend him keep that chance alive. They are shooting themselves in the foot. Why? It is irrational.
Where did I say any of those actions were unusual? Please stop putting in words that I did not say.
Some are, I also believe that some are not so partisan as to want Trump to be the nominee. The Democrat party is no more a monolith than the Republican party is, there are several with different ideas in both.
Yes, if he runs as an independent he does more damage to the Republican party for the 24 election. Long term as an independent I think he could splinter off a sizable portion of GOP voters to his brand and greatly reduce the percentage of voters who identify Republican.
Ask someone who defends him. I don't care for the partisan politics out of either party.
Good grief man, chill that hair trigger. You stated that the Ds were trying to tear down Trump since 2015. That happens all the time in partisan politics so the fact that you pointed it out suggests that you find it noteworthy. I see nothing noteworthy or unusual about partisans attacking 'the other side'. Thus my question.
For those who believe the Jan 6th committee is predominantly partisan, I suggest that a partisan-driven committee would want Trump as the nominee. It is illogical for a predominantly partisan committee to want to remove Trump from being the GoP nominee and basically guaranteeing a D win.
Thus, logically, the Jan 6th committee is proceeding based not on pure partisanship but rather on accountability and justice.
One could argue that they are looking very long term and are trying to have the GoP be historically tagged as the only party whose former PotUS was criminally charged and possibly convicted. That is certainly a possibility too.
My view is that this committee is focused on short-term accountability. USA politicians tend to be very short-term focused.
I think he could absolutely spoil the 2024 election for the GoP. After that, I think he will be irrelevant. At his age, after losing again but now as an independent, I would expect Trump to give up on politics anyway. There will be a point where he simply does not have the energy to be a public asshole. And it will not be that long before he is no longer among the living.
You have no opinion on why GoP members continue to support Trump given they are shooting themselves in the foot?