For an alternate viewpoint, see “Point: J6 Panel’s Work Is Crucial to Preserving Freedoms and Democracy.”
The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack has spent $4 million in taxpayer money on its investigation of the riot at the Capitol. The American people are due to receive a final report December 21.
The House Select Committee asserts the hearings and the coming report are necessary for the “saving of our democracy.” Supporters of the investigation claim those who stormed the Capitol are “extremists and domestic terrorists,” and Congress must address what they view as “influencing factors” leading to the events. What will the report contain? Was the time, effort and money worth the cost? The court of public opinion will decide, but I say no.
The entire premise of the House Select Committee investigation is faulty. While the conduct of some bad actors during the events was indeed unacceptable, the actions of protesters hardly rose to the level of domestic terrorism. The Boston Marathon bombing (2013), the Oklahoma City bombing (1995), and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting (2018) are examples of domestic terrorism. People who committed these acts of terrorism intended to kill their victims to make an ideological point. That is not what happened on January 6.
Did some protesters cross the line and break the law? Yes, but most protesters went to the Capitol to protest peacefully what they viewed as an unfair election. Contrary to the committee’s assertions, there was no over-arching, unified attack on the Capitol based on White supremacy that day.
If precedent is any sign, many subjects of the House Select Committee investigation, including former president Donald Trump, will never testify. How does the committee expect to submit a complete and objective report without the testimonies of key players like Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, former vice president Mike Pence and Trump?
Pointing out the lack of testimony is no suggestion that anyone in Trump’s sphere should have subjected themselves to questioning by the committee. No one in their right mind would testify before a committee comprising their enemies based on an inaccurate, politicized version of events, as characterized by the House Select Committee.
Had they consulted the American people before the House threw away $4 million of taxpayer money, recent memory of the costly Mueller investigation and two attempts to impeach Trump would undoubtedly arise.
In fact, other committees and investigations would serve the electorate in much more meaningful ways. How about a “Committee to Investigate the Open Border”; a “Committee to Investigate the Baby Food Shortage”; a “Committee to investigate foreign investments of President Biden”; or how about a “Committee to investigate the skyrocketing murder rates of minorities in progressive cities”? These would seem to be more pressing issues affecting the security and pocketbooks of the American people in the immediate future.
Fair-minded observers of issues the House investigates notice a difference in criteria regarding threats of domestic terrorism. The riots in the summer of 2020 caused far more damage and killed more people nationwide, yet few perpetrators of these criminal acts were arrested or prosecuted. On January 6th, many were arrested, charged and convicted. Further, President Biden’s election was certified, thus peacefully transferring government power.
As problematic as the premise for the House committee is, the American people will not leave empty-handed. Their $4 million investment will buy plenty for the citizenry to take home; plenty of partisanship, more divisiveness, and an increased lack of trust in the electoral process is the legacy the 117th session of the House leaves behind.