Jack Buckby: The January 6 Committee Is Just Political Porn For Trump Haters
As the January 6 committee hearings play out, the inherent bias of the panel and its total failure to get to the bottom of the riot are plain for all to see.
What the committee has presented so far is a series of testimonies from former Trump associates and political figures expressing discontent about the days and weeks in the run-up to the riot and the actions of some in the Trump administration. What we have not been shown, however, is evidence that the former president directed rioters to commit violence, break into the Capitol building, or engage in an “insurrection.”
No such evidence was presented because it was never deemed necessary by the panel. The investigation was based on the contested notion that the former president was guilty from the start, and that Congress needed to speak to the president’s associates to confirm that their theory was true.
And the hearings that followed constitute little more than political pornography for activists who don’t want the country to think too hard about rising inflation or the coming recession.
While the D.C. riot is impossible for any person of sound mind to defend, the way in which this investigation has been carried out raises several important questions about the function and legitimacy of these committees now and into the future.
Failing to consider the possibility that the former president didn’t want, incite, or advocate a riot in the first place means that the conclusions of this panel were predictable from the moment that Nancy Pelosi announced it. It’s astonishing that the panel got away with this, too, given that Trump explicitly called for a peaceful protest on January 6.
Love him or hate him, that is simply a documented fact.
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” Trump said during his January 6 speech.
In a tweet on January 6, 2021, Trump told protestors to remain peaceful.
“I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful,” Trump said at 15:13. “No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”
Three hours later, Trump also called on protestors to “go home with love & in peace.”
To supporters of the former president, the evidence shows that he explicitly condemned the violence. To his detractors, his comments were too little too late, and he should have acted more quickly to condemn the violence and tell the rioters to go home.
The evidence does not show that the former president endorsed, supported, or called for violence that day.
While Pelosi insists that her party’s claims about the former president are true, she is undercut by her own committee’s repeated requests for access to calls, emails, and documents to assist with the investigation.
The January 6 committee made these requests to Trump confidantes, White House officials, and even members of the Trump family precisely because the committee had no evidence that the former president directed rioters to enact a violent riot or a coup. And even after the subpoenas, the committee still has no such evidence.
If Nancy Pelosi knew her assertion that Trump directed rioters to overthrow the government was true – and that he should have been arrested for it – then what purpose did the subpoenas and the requests for Trump administration records serve?
And if Pelosi didn’t have the evidence to support her assertions about the former president in the first place, then why did her committee accept them as fact so quickly?
Without Reps. Jim Banks and Jim Jordan, both of whom were refused seats on the panel by Pelosi precisely because they disagreed with the basis of the investigation, there was not a single dissenting voice ready to question the foundations of the investigation.
It’s the equivalent of grabbing a man on the street, making him the suspect in a murder case, assuming him guilty, and using time in court to debate how he committed the crime.
And then demanding access to his personal emails.
From the very beginning of this investigation, former President Donald Trump was guilty until proven guilty.
Once again – no sane individual can say with a straight face that what happened on January 6 was right. It was not. From a Republican perspective, the riot was hugely damaging, divisive, and a gift to ultra-partisan Democrats itching to find a new way to smear Republicans.
From a human perspective, it was an ugly display of anger and narcissism from those who reveled in the media attention that day. Put more simply, it was utterly foolish, irresponsible, and dangerous.
For the American political system to work, it needs at least two parties to hold one another to account – and in order for those parties to hold one another to account, they must be able to trust that everybody in government is acting in good faith. These hearings prove that this simply isn’t the case.
The hearings, and the investigation that preceded them, raise several important questions that must be answered by our political leaders, lest we descend into a state of governmental bedlam and civil unrest.
Why did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuse to seat even one member of Congress who disagreed with the contested notion that former President Donald Trump purposely incited a riot?
Without seating anybody on the panel who disagreed with this contested notion, the conclusions of the committee were entirely predictable and the investigation pointless. Democrats and Republicans alike knew that these hearings would be an opportunity for the panel to reiterate contested claims and present a preponderance of evidence from cherrypicked subpoenas.
Their claim was never proven, however, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why did the panel never once consider the possibility that the former president didn’t want violence to occur that day?
Not a single member of the panel considered this possibility or expressed any doubt that the contested claim about the former president was true.
This was apparently by design. Nonetheless, the fact that not a single legislator on the panel asked the question or considered it a possibility indicates that they were not acting in good faith.
Will Democrats ever be held accountable for the riots inspired by their own words and actions?
Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris called on Americans to donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, a bail fund for violent protestors and rioters who burned down buildings and destroyed businesses during the Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots of 2020.
If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota. https://t.co/t8LXowKIbw
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) June 1, 2020
That same month, a map revealed how approximately 700 buildings were damaged in the riots, and early estimates suggested there was at least $55 million in building damage caused by left-wing rioters.
Harris has never been held accountable in any meaningful way for this, nor has she ever addressed it. If the vice president of the United States can get away with that by virtue of being a Democrat, then so can any legislator representing her party.
And now that congress’s most partisan members know that these committees are effective at dictating the news cycle, will we see more committees like this in the run-up to future presidential elections?
Probably.
Jack Buckby is a British author, counter-extremism researcher, and journalist based in New York. Reporting on the U.K., Europe, and the U.S., he works to analyze and understand left-wing and right-wing radicalization, and reports on Western governments’ approaches to the pressing issues of today. His books and research papers explore these themes and propose pragmatic solutions to our increasingly polarized society.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...