September 6, 2022
Over the last few months, Americans have been given the opportunity to witness the hearings of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Various witnesses have been presented to a committee hand-picked by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with only two Republicans (Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger), both of whom have been ostracized by the GOP caucus for their participation. In an angry and divided country, where Republicans and Democrats both trade using the power of the government for their own ends, what is the ultimate purpose of the committee itself?
______________________________
According to various media personality opinions, the committee's main goal is to bring justice to those who unlawfully entered the United States Capitol on January 6th when the 2020 election results were being certified by Congress. It was truly a shameful day in American history, and those who were trespassing, and causing property damage while the Electoral College results were approved should be prosecuted under federal law. I fully agree with that.
However, the committee's goal does not appear to seek prosecution of those who committed any crimes. The members do not seem to investigate the root causes of why Trump Supporters decided to storm the U.S. Capitol and voice their anger and opposition to certifying results. For the 9/11 Congressional Commission, which sought to make public errors on the part of the government, the foreign policy establishment, and domestic security entities, leading up to that fateful day in 2001, this January 6th committee isn't by comparison interested in finding the primary motive for what transpired that day. It appears that the goal of this committee does not seek out answers so this episode never happens again. I don't see any effort to put out any simmering fires of voter resentment, or mistrust in how we conduct fair elections since that day. The committee must do more in their transparency, to strive to make assurances to a divided electorate about why our elections have become so violent in their opposition to either dominant political party, and what things can be done to lower the temperature and enforce civility for future election outcomes. That is the most important message and purpose in my view.
The January 6th Committee has called several witnesses, some of whom have worked in the White House at different levels of seniority, (including Mark Meadows and aide Cassidy Hutchison), and journalists embedded with the groups in the crowd (Oath Keepers, Proud Boys), election night workers, former Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, all to gather what took place in the months, weeks and days leading up to election night. Some of the testimony that I have watched or listened to, and questions from the committee members themselves, seem to paint or imply a direct line to one person, and one person only, former President Donald Trump. The committee doesn't seem to want to find out why people stormed the Capitol but instead wants to gather evidence to directly blame Mr. Trump. To be fair, former President Trump played a significant role in creating the tinder for this whole affair when he made ludicrous statements that the "election was rigged," and that his rightful victory was taken from him. Is he the sole cause or the largest, most visible participant in the immense damage done to American democracy and a politically convenient figure to target?
One complaint from conservatives and Republicans is that there was no cross-examining of any of the witnesses. Since this is not a trial per se, I don't think there is any reason for cross-examination. Witnesses provided their testimony and then were excused. People watching the hearings may assume what happened, but since it is a Congressional, and not a civil matter, there is no requirement that any witness has their testimony challenged. Since the committee is largely skewed toward Democrats, with only two Republicans represented in Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, the GOP complaints seem valid.
What is the actual purpose of these hearings? Will there be criminal charges levied against Mr. Trump by the DOJ? Was the committee trying to tie some sort of Constitutional technicality on Mr. Trump to what happened on January 6th? I believe there is language in the United States Constitution that implies disqualification for anyone from running for federal office that leads to any sort of "insurrection" against the United States government (14th Amendment). Many political pundits on television seem to tie the words "Trump" and "insurrection" together at every turn. I believe this repetition is geared toward creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and will eventually come to fruition, either through evidence unearthed through these hearings, or other factors, such as the DOJ seeking certain "classified" documents from Mr. Trump. It is to eventually convince Americans that there was something truly nefarious about his actions, and he imperiled democracy, with the smallest amount of implication and inference.
If there is evidence proving former President Trump's guilt, then let him receive justice. However, if after time, it is obvious that this is shown to be an exercise to damage or remove a prospective challenger with a real chance of defeating President Biden in 2024, then it will only further enrage his supporters and make it even harder to have impartial election results. Additionally, it could cost Mr. Biden any moral sympathy and support from independent voters. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the DOJ must provide sound reasoning (as well as evidence) as to why they are using these drastic methods.
In light of the recent developments where the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided former President Trump's Florida residence at Mar-a-Lago, things certainly have become more interesting. This event has raised the stakes, and according to national media and many online publications seem to believe that there were secret nuclear documents or sharing of "classified documents," which, if true, is most damaging to the case against Mr. Trump. The Affidavit that the DOJ used to get a warrant was released on Friday, August 26th. Most of the text was redacted, but from what remained, there did not appear to be any incriminating behavior from former President Trump. That could change if the redacted words are available for public viewing, but for now, the DOJ needs to make a concerted effort to show the country that there is a serious case to charge the former President.
So far, the January 6th Committee has done nothing to show who was actually behind the riot at the Capitol or provided any evidence as to what was the primary cause to get so many people to charge inside the building illegally. I find what the committee has done so far as mostly window dressing. For the country to approve charging a former President with a crime, the evidence must be damning, overwhelming, unequivocal, and most importantly, not for political gain. Anything less will not suffice and could damage Mr. Biden's chance for re-election. Most importantly, the DOJ, Merrick Garland, and the White House may have charted a path that will take generations for the country to recover from, or not at all.
