The January 6 Report

Even if you watched large portions of the public hearings that ground this report, you should read the report. There is so much more detail here, and it is all referenced with supporting documentary evidence. The attack on the Capital was more coordinated, more dangerous, and far more connected to the evil influences of the then administration and it’s morally bankrupt figurehead. If you don’t read anything else from the report, the forward and the afterword are jewels of American and Constitutional thought. Representative Jamie Raskin is a rare intellect and vicious proponent and protector of the United States Constitution. If only our populace was still receiving Social and Government Studies education like those of us who show more attended schools in the days before No Child Left Behind – which has left everyone far behind in critical thinking skills.

5 bones!!!!!
Highly Recommended show less

https://fromtheheartofeurope.eu/final-report-of-the-select-committee-to-investig...

Like the rest of you, I was utterly appalled by the extreme right wing attack on the Capitol on 6 January 2021, a direct attempt to overturn the 2020 election result by violence. What was not clear on the evening, but has now been made very clear by the labours of the Select Committee set up by the House of Representatives to look into the events, is the extent to which this was a part of a premeditated and criminal plan by Trump to illegally remain in power.

The evidence is clear. Most of those who testified to the Select Committee were Republicans, a number of them working directly for Trump in the White House. I myself said on the record to Bloomberg show more News, the day after the election, that there was little chance of the election result being overturned in the Supreme Court because there was no case. Eight leading conservative American lawyers have reported clearly and succinctly on the justified failure of all of Trump’s legal challenges. Nobody who has looked into it can seriously maintain, in good faith, that there is any doubt about the legitimacy of Biden’s win in the election.

Bad faith is a different matter, and the Report lays out how Trump cast aside the sensible lawyers and started to take advice from those who told him what he wanted to hear, culminating in the massive effort on 6 January to intimidate Vice-President Mike Pence into breaking the law and disqualifying enough valid votes for Biden to enable Trump to remain in office. I must admit that Pence comes out of it rather well, sticking to his position even when the mob came within a few metres of the office were he was being protected.

The Republican National Committee does not come out looking as good. They supported Trump’s hopeless legal challenges to the election results in the states, and also legitimised his shameless and aggressive personal bullying towards election workers – some senior state officials, some just ordinary folks who happened to attract the president’s ire. They also benefited from the fraudulent fund-raising to “Stop the Steal”, which continued long after the result was beyond any doubt. It is sickening that the mayhem and deaths of 6 January were instrumentalised as a marketing tool.

The National Guard also comes out looking bad. Although there had been internal discussion of how to use them in support of public order, delays in the command chain meant that by the time they got authorisation to assist the hard-pressed police, the riot was over because the President had called it off. There are also constitutional ambiguities about Trump’s role as commander-in-chief, but the report is clear that this was not the problem on the day.

But it all comes back to Trump. There is no smoking gun demonstrating that he had operational command and control over the mob. But there is plenty of evidence that they thought they were taking orders from him. For three hours they rampaged through the Capitol while friends, allies and family begged Trump to speak out against the violence; and as soon as he told them to disperse and go home, they did. The evidence from White House staffers who were there on the day is particularly chilling.

Anyone who defends Trump, let alone the rioters, over 6 January 2021 is not worth listening to. He decided that he did not like the election results; he desperately looked for legal ways to overturn the vote, and did not find any; and he attempted to use mob violence to cling to power. He is not fit for office, and nor is anyone who supports him. show less

I watched on television each of the Select Committee's public hearings to determine responsibility for the Capitol Riot/Attempted Insurrection inspired and incited by a sitting President to stop the peaceful transfer of Presidential Power. The images were appalling. The testimony given by every witness was compelling in its candor and demanding in its truthfulness. The sacrifices of those who protected Legislators, the hardships endured by those who protected the public vote stood starkly in contrast against those in the Trump administration, Trump campaign, and the Trump sphere of influence who conspired, planned, and attempted to execute a forcible takeover of the United States Presidency. What was done, who was involved and to what show more degree, the days, and months prior to January 6th, and all of the events leading up to that day and beyond were staggering to watch. Now in print, it is somehow more. I watched it happen as it was happening on the news. I saw it replayed over and over in the televised hearings. Now, reading all of it put together, step by step, has somehow transformed it into History. It creates a frightening tale. A story too horrific to imagine, but it is all true. I recommend this for anyone. Politics aside, and at this point in time, the politics of the moment fail. This presents the reality, we came within moments of having our Republic murdered. Five Stars. Read it. show less

After all the coverage there wasn't a great deal of surprise left to read in the report, but I'm still glad I took the time to sit and read it start to finish (also it's not as long as it looks, there are a lot of endnotes). Riveting, terrifying, and revolting, but very edifying that the Committee was able to put so much on the record.

The January 6th Report: Findings from the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol by The January 6 Select Committee is an interesting read based on the findings of the investigation into the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol to interfere with Congress doing its job of certifying the 2020 election. It is sometimes a bit dry and legalistic, but it attempts to create a record that is accessible for people to understand the findings and facts discovered through the Select Committee's investigation. There are a lot of footnotes detailing where the evidence originated for the findings the Committee made. The book would be much shorter without the extensive documentation in the show more footnotes, but those footnotes are important. There is some repetition, but that repetition was necessary because various acts and words spoken applied to different aspects of the attack and what lead up to it. I found The January 6th Report a worthwhile read and took my time reading it to try to better understand what happened and how it came to happen while looking for a way to avoid a repeat. show less

This review is long. Very, very, very long. The sections were originally separate postings on Facebook regarding specific complaints of opponents. Overall I found the work interesting, some elements exposed were chilling, particularly given that some of the same players are still in the game and may have this attempt as a moot coup in preparation for a real one. But what is clear to anyone who can read with an open mind, i.e. come in with a perspective that those who testified were telling the truth, is that there was unquestionably mischief afoot. Putting it mildly.

The report is not as long as it seems, more than half of its ~750 pages are endnotes comprising mostly the sources of the information reported. Since little else besides the show more source was there, I eventually stopped looking. There is enough redundancy to be noticable. Could the redundancy have been avoided? Not without compromising the clarity of the "telling of the tale".

Hearsay Evidence Improper
One of the criticisms leveled at the committee was allowing hearsay, particularly the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson. This also bothered me at first. Then, as I learned more about the process that is followed, I learned that a Congressional Committe of the House is an investigative body only. They don't even have the ability to enforce their own subpoenas as we saw with Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro. Investigators, speaking in general, have not only the right, but the responsibility, to investigate based on hearsay.

But let's consider that a Congressional Committee is more like a grand jury, in that, like a grand jury, a Congressional Committee takes testimony. In Utah, a grand jury can consider hearsay testimony only to the extent that it is allowed in preliminary hearings. Now isn't that really helpful! So I looked that up. And here it is, unadulterated:

If from the evidence the magistrate finds probable cause to believe that the crime charged has been committed and that the defendant has committed it, the magistrate must order that the defendant be bound over for trial. The findings of probable cause may be based on hearsay, in whole or in part.

The last sentence seems to me the most germane part.
There is another piece of clarification for the hearsay criticism. When their investigation is complete, the Committe refers to DOJ to determine if charges should be filed. The Committee does not decide that. The DOJ then determines if there is adequate direct evidence to procede with charges. They do their own, separate investigation.

So the criticism of allowing hearsay to be unfair or improper I decided, for myself and my perspective, to be not legitimate.

Put another way. say I'm suspected of a crime but, having been injured, I don't remember anythng about that day. I can't give myself an alibi. During the investigation, police learn from my friend Misty that she, my friend Polly and I were going to go to a movie but something came up and she couldn't go. She talked to Polly later that day and Polly told her what we had done that day from beginning to end. I sure as heck hope the police would listen to Misty's hearsay evidence and go talk to Polly to verify.

In an investigation, hearsay is allowed. In a trial, it is not. The Committee's effort was investigation, not trial. It is not the Committee's responsibility if private individuals chose to see it as a trial. They are adults. That is on them. But I agree it is legitimate as an investigative tool.

Trump Claims Massive Frauds Ignored
I've thought a lot about Trump's complaint that the committee did not investigate the massive fraud occurring in this election. This is another case of Trump figuring his base is not going to read the report and find out that they did, in fact, investigate the massive fraud. So he can lie to them with impunity. HOWEVER, let's consider it from Trump's view. But I will start with an example from my own life.

I had a young man who worked for me who, no matter what I tried to help out, could not work his slated hours. After 6 months, of him working 3-8 hours a week in a 20 hour a week job, I had no choice but to ask for his resignation or fire him. During that final interview, he said to me, "You have no idea how complicated and hard my home life is." I answered him, "That is true, but because you chose to not tell me, you also chose for me to not be able to take it into account."

It is the same thing with Trump and his allies. The level of avoidance of giving testimony by those folks is truly astounding. To be fair, the length of those efforts was not detailed in the report, I just recall from the news. Mr. Meadows and Mr. Stepien were given passes by the court. Mr. Bannon has been convicted and Mr. Navarro under indictment for their failure to appear. The several Representatives subpoenaed chose to not appear and have been referred to the House Committe on Ethics. Mr. Trump complained they did not talk to him but said "no" when they invited him to come. Mr. Pence respectfully declined. Some of the Trump White House staff who did come in plead the Fifth, while some did testify.

But the point is this: if you want to have your side told, you have to do the telling. If you choose to not do the telling, you simultaneously choose for it to not be taken into account and you, then, have no right to gripe about it. The problem lies with you, not the Committee who wanted to hear from you. And all the excuses in the world do not change that.

But, still, the former President is wrong. The Committee actually did consider the claims of massive fraud: hearing from Trump's Attorney General and head of Trump's DOJ Mr. Barr, hearing from Trump's daughter Ivanka, hearing from Mr. Bowers of Arizona and Mr. Raffensperger of Georgia, Republicans all who really wanted Trump to win, and other Republicans also wanting Trump to win. Each and every one of these individuals who voted for Trump in the 2020 election were, in the end, unwilling to report anything but the facts to the Committee.

They quoted such pesky things as the rules in their state, the laws of their states, regulations, federal laws and articles, even parts of the Consitution. All of these things Mr. Trump, in a later statement declared that, in the face of massive fraud, should be terminated. He was referring to those elements in regard to the 2020 election, not terminating all of them everywhere.

The testimony that impressed me the most was Mr. Cipollone, the White House attorney. During his testimony, Mr. Cipollone testified to what he could and, at times, respectfully declined to answer due to attorney-client privilege. In all cases, the Committee respected Mr. Cipollone's claims of privilege without challenging his claim of the privilege. Some Committee questions were even proceeded with, "If you can answer, ...." demonstrating the Committee's respect.
So for Trump's claim the Committee did not investigate the massive fraud -- FALSE. They found Trump's claims were the fraud. Massive fraud.

Security Failures Ignored
Criticism was raised that the Committee failed to look at secuity failures which allowed the January 6th protest to get to point that it was out of control, a full riot ensued and the Capitol was breached. This is a fair criticism. The Committee did not look into that to any real degree. To be fair, this criticism was raised largely by people critical of the primary work of the Committee even to the point of suggesting it was an invalid Committee.

The Committee knew it had a deadline by which the investigation must be complete, any recommendations for criminal charges must be passed on to the DOJ, legislative actions identified, ethics violations suggested and the final report submitted.

No harm was caused by leaving evaluation of security failures to those who clammored for it to be pursued. They had every right to create a committee to review the problems and causes of failure to properly protect the Capitol and to recommend legislative responses. But, of course, they have chosen to not do this. That failure on their part clearly demonstrates they were really not interested in that at all anyway. Which is too bad. It really should be investigated with an eye toward legislative amelioration, perhaps broadening who can call in National Guard or military intervention in case of a riot on federal property.

Legislative Component
Committees such as the January 6th Committee must have a legislative component to be legitimate. As a result of the findings of the Committee, bills to update the Electoral Count act were submitted. Included as part of an overall economic bill, The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 was signed into law by President Joe Biden on December 23, 2022.

Elements of the bill include:

- Specifying that the vice president's role at the joint session of congress to count electoral votes is ministerial and that he or she cannot solely adjudicate disputes over electors.
- Raising the objection threshold at the joint session of congress to count electoral votes to one-fifth of the members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Under the 1887 Electoral Count Act, the threshold was one member from each chamber of Congress.
- Identifying governors as the single official responsible for submitting the certificate of ascertainment identifying that state’s electors, unless that official is otherwise identified in the state's laws or constitution.
- Providing for expedited judicial review of certain claims about states' certificates identifying their electors.

Summary
What unarguably is clear is that Trump was derelict in his duty. That is not in question by any but the most blind. He had a responsibility, as President, to protect the Congress as soon as he heard of the violence, certainly by 1:23 when he was sitting in the White House dining room watching it on TV. But he did not. For almost 3 hours he did nothing at all to address the riot. He had never put any troops on alert in advance as he later claimed. (Had it been done, he'd have bragged ahead of it, so we know by his silence then that it is untrue.) He never called anyone who could call out troops and he never instructed anyone to do it on his orders.

Is it something everyone should read? Actually, I'd say "yes". The breadth of the efforts of the Trump Campaign, once it abandoned any filing in the court, once it decided to forego legal strategies, is astounding. For those legal actions which were dismissed due to lack of standing, find a way to have standing. For those legal actions which were dismissed due to lack of evidence, strengthen your proof. Even Peter Navarro, according to recently identified recordings from Fox News, was critical of Trump Campaign officials for that saying they were more interested in putting the money in their own pockets than in helping the President.

Some suggest Trump is the victim of bad legal advice. It is an excuse Trump uses but as he sat there, he had those "bad advisers" get pushed into a corner and admit the Pence plan was not legal and would get defeated in court. But Trump is not afraid of going to court. He is in his element, he thinks, there. He was counting on the illegal efforts to work and he would return to the White House. Although later court actions might remove him, still, possession is nine tenths of the law and there might be just enough lack of impetus to allow him to stay. And to put into play his next plan for remaining. Take a "reality pill" if you don't think he has one. If you listen, he has already revealed it. show less

I could not put this down. I was falling asleep reading it! You gotta read it to believe it folks. I also agree with the writer at the Atlantic that it's so well done and put together, that it will become a definitive part of American history, l really feel that.