It has been more than a year since the House January 6 investigations concluded, and the cloud of doubt hanging over that body not only lingers, but it is darkening. Here at RedState, we were dubious and critical of the process this committee employed at the time, and consistently, those concerns were on point. Now, more details of the operation are coming to light, showing this was not a serious look into the facts.

A new investigation is taking place in the GOP-run House, and Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), who chairs this new subcommittee, has detailed that key players behind one of the most audacious statements made to the January 6 committee were delayed from giving their testimony – for months! The story of President Trump physically battling with the Secret Service to take control of the president’s limousine was a wild made-for-TV melodrama, yet the “investigators” appear to have been disinterested in seeking out facts that could derail that fantasy.

This revelation proves what most sober-thinking people felt about the congressional panel. When the disgraced January 6 committee was underway, it became clear there were problems. From its formation, it was clear this would be a kangaroo court process, as Nancy Pelosi stripped the Republicans of the choice of members to place the biased duo of Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney on the panel. The hearings were staged for television, using a former ABC News producer to design it for the cameras, a sign this would be performative, not exploratory.

The gushing media laughably declared this committee to be the consummate fact-checking apparatus. The likes of Brian Stelter and Anne Applebaum hailed the committee as unimpeachable investigators, and this led the press to commit dereliction of duty, as the journalists felt these findings need not be explored and verified. The result was a lengthy committee endeavor that became compromised, ultimately leading to little consequence. Just look how the final report was released and the fanfare in the press was rather muted.

A new revelation underscores the lack of serious investigation and instead shows how this committee had a goal-incentivized mindset. This latest detail centers on the “explosive” testimony from former White House figure Cassidy Hutchinson, possibly the most prominent lingering memory of this sham affair. That investigators did not explore her story with verified individuals speaks to the members' biased approach. To appreciate the sloth and bias of this committee, we first lay out the back story.

The committee was bogged down in June 2022. There were no new testimonies or evidence to report on at that time—which is not to say they had no more work. It meant that they did not have anything appropriately telegenic for their efforts, so it was announced there would be a recess with an indeterminate time in July noted to return. Then abruptly, the committee announced that it had a surprise witness, and a hastily called primetime episode was set to air in days.

This was the appearance of Hutchinson and her audacious tale of behind-the-scenes activities and the discussions she claimed to have been a part of were the stuff of TV drama, and the press devoured her words in rapacious fashion. What the press did not do was commit journalism and explore her claims. It soon became evident this inaction was matched by the committee.

The most salacious testimony from Hutchinson involved the claim that Donald Trump was energized to go to the Capitol and witness the crowd of protestors, and after the Secret Service agents balked at this request the president became enraged, lunging from the backseat and grabbing hold of the steering wheel of the presidential limousine. It was a tale as wild and hysterical as it was unbelievable, with all the reason to doubt its veracity being clear. Instead, the press broadcast this fable boldly. 

Almost instantly, Cassidy’s claims became contested, and then a revelation behind her testimony exposed the committee. The first issue was that Hutchinson previously testified, never bringing up these stories. The next glaring issue was that her tale of the limo conflict was not verifiable; not only was she never in the vehicle, but she was recounting overhearing a conversation where an agent discussed what he heard from another agent about what he heard occurred inside the vehicle. It was, at best, fourth-hand information.

This would normally be considered inadmissible testimony, but not only did the committee buy her tale — they also did nothing to verify this stretch of the facts. The Secret Service was not contacted about this alleged episode, which one would expect to have been the immediate move made by a panel serious about investigating facts. Instead, Hutchinson was put in front of the cameras to broadcast unsubstantiated claims.

Rep. Loudermilk reported that the limousine driver from the Secret Service made himself available to the committee multiple times, offering to deliver his testimony about what transpired with the president inside the vehicle. The committee instead held him at bay. Let us grasp this significance: The committee accepted Hutchinson’s account at face value and placed her on television to testify, yet never reached out to the Secret Service – something that should have been the immediate action to take place. 

The transcript of the driver’s testimony reviewed by Just the News shows his lawyer complained that his client had offered to testify in July, August and September of 2022, but was “rebuffed” by the January 6 committee led by Chairman Rep. Benny Thompson, a Democrat, and Vice Chairwoman Rep. Liz Cheney.

The transcript also shows that Cheney tried to explain to the driver’s lawyer why there was such a long delay in accepting his offer to testify, claiming the committee wanted to wait until the Secret Service produced all documents in the January 6 investigation.

The committee finally took the testimony from the presidential limo driver in November, one day ahead of the national election. It would be weeks before the committee closed its investigation, completely smothering this episode by that point.

What more must be revealed about this corrupted body alleged to have “investigated” the January 6 activity? A questionable source with a wafer-thin claim and zero evidence was pushed in front of an American audience to weave her hysterical myths, but the agency directly involved was held off until a comprehensive collection of documents could be obtained. The woman delivering hearsay required no proof, but those officials on-site with first-hand testimony were required first to provide comprehensive evidence.

As more revelations of corrupted activities by the January 6 committee come to light, it becomes apparent that action needs to be taken. This was a slanted process meant to deceive the American public; accountability is needed.