Imagine, if you will, sitting down to begin a murder-mystery novel, only to read – on the very first page – who killed whom, where and when the crime took place, and what motivated the murderer. Then, the entire story from that point on contains nothing that logically explains the conclusions reached on page one. That would be a fairly accurate analogy for the activities of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol – more commonly referred to as the Jan. 6 Committee.
That conclave of lawmakers wrapped up on Dec. 19 with a predictable unanimous vote to refer former President Donald Trump to the Justice Department for prosecution. The seven Democrats and two Republicans who made up the body could have done this on the first day and saved the American taxpayer a fortune – because everyone knew how this would end. The real indictment of the committee, however, is its decision to thrust the Department of Justice into what is an entirely political dispute, rather than leaving it to the will of the people. This panel could have consigned Trump’s political fate to the hands of the voters but chose instead to force Attorney General Merrick Garland’s hand: to make a decision that will likely enrage and appall half of the nation, either way.
Jan. 6 Committee Allowed No Dissent
The final session of the Jan. 6 Committee was, essentially, the closing argument of the prosecution – but not of the defense, since none had been permitted. The 45th president, his legal representatives, and his allies in Congress had not been provided the opportunity to present any exculpatory evidence or dispute the committee’s findings. As a spokesperson for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said in a statement responding to the criminal referrals:
“This is just another partisan and political stunt made by a Select Committee that knowingly altered evidence, blocked minority representation on a Committee for the first time in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives, and failed to respond to Mr. Jordan’s numerous letters and concerns surrounding the politicization and legitimacy of the Committee’s work.”
Interestingly, though, a not-insignificant amount of time was devoted to airing a video montage of various state-level officials and other individuals claiming that there was no evidence of voting or ballot-counting irregularities during the 2020 presidential election. In fact, convincing the committee’s audience – those Americans who actually watched – that the result of the last general election was legitimate featured prominently. Skeptics – and there are still many – would have been tempted to recall the well-known quote from the Shakespeare play Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Of course, the point of this was to drive home the fact that questioning the outcome of an election was tantamount to treason. Never mind that Democrats have done so almost too often to recall.
(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)
Outgoing Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) even went so far as to take the words of one of the Founding Fathers entirely out of context in an attempt to emphasize the awfulness of disputing election results. “In 1761,” she said, “John Adams wrote, ‘the very ground of our liberties is the freedom of elections. Faith in our elections and the rule of law is paramount to our republic.’” Adams was not suggesting that election results should not be questioned, though – that is quite obvious. He was commenting on how vital it was that elections be conducted in a fair and proper manner — so much so that the people would have faith in the outcomes.
Ultimately, this was a group of hyper-partisans – and that label applies equally to the two Republicans on the committee – spending 18 months attempting to justify why they had concluded, at the start, that Trump is a criminal. The goal was always to prevent the former president from even having a fair chance of becoming the next president.
Liberty Nation has already described the potentially devastating repercussions of Democrats succeeding in their quest to bar Trump from office. If the members of the Jan. 6 Committee were so devoted to the democratic process, would they not have been content to present their conclusions – and what they consider the evidence – to the American people and then let them decide with their votes in 2024? Is not the greatest threat to democracy a group of elected officials dreaming up ways to prevent their political opponents from even taking part in the democratic process?
