Boy, oh boy, how wrong and misguided they were.

The House January 6 Committee Report

As described by George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, January 6 was and remains "as much a political litmus test as it is a historical event."

I  couldn't agree more. Turley expounded (emphasis, mine):

Whether you refer to that day as a riot or an insurrection puts you on one side or the other of a giant political chasm. I viewed the attack on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process, but I did not view it as an insurrection. I still don’t.

[...]

With Donald Trump set to return to the White House in 2025, it is astonishing how much of that day remains a matter of intense debate. Those divisions are likely only to deepen after a slew of recent reports that have challenged the selective release of information from the House January 6 Committee.

And that's exactly what's happening; the credibility of both the committee's "investigation" and final report continue to lose credibility.

ALSO READ:

Let's Toast the Death of the Jan. 6 Narrative

DHS Puts Secret Service in Charge of Security of Electoral College Vote Count Process. No, Really.

Incidentally, even a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll found that almost half of the public — 43 percent — believed that “too much is being made” of the episode and that it is “time to move on.” Turley explained why he believes the percentage of Americans "ready to move on" from January 6 continues to grow.

The continued distrust of the official accounts of Jan. 6 reflects a failure of the House Democrats, and specifically former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to guarantee a credible and comprehensive investigation.

The House Select Committee to investigate January 6 was comprised of Democrat-selected members who offered only one possible view: that January 6 was an attempt to overthrow our democracy by Trump and his supporters. 

The committee hired a former ABC News producer to create a slick, made-for-television production that barred opposing views and countervailing evidence. The members, including Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney, played edited videotapes of Trump’s speech that removed the portion where Trump called on his supporters to protest “peacefully.”

The committee fostered false accounts, including the claim that there was a violent episode with Trump trying to wrestle control of the presidential limousine. The Committee knew that the key Secret Service driver directly contradicted that account offered by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.

Simply, House Democrats, along with disgruntled (now former) Republican Reps. Liz Cheney (WY) and Adam Kinzinger (IL), predetermined the conclusions that their kangaroo court would come to, and they set about constructing "evidence" and interviewing "witnesses" to support their conclusions.

The Lack of Security Measures

Along with most objective observers with even a modicum of knowledge of the facts as they occurred on January 6, Turley was also puzzled.

After all, there had been a violent riot at the White House before January 6, in which more officers were injured and Trump had to be moved to a secure location. The National Guard had to be called out to protect the White House, but those same measures (including a fence) were not ordered at the Capitol.

Two of the recent reports offered new details related to those questions.

One report confirmed that Trump did, in fact, offer the deployment of the National Guard in anticipation of the protest. The Jan. 6 Committee repeatedly dismissed this claim. After all, it would be a rather curious attempt at an insurrection if Trump was suggesting the use of thousands of troops to prevent any breach of Congress. 

The committee specifically found “no evidence” that the Trump administration called for 10,000 National Guard members to be sent to Washington, D.C., to protect the Capitol. The Washington Post even supposedly “debunked” Trump’s comments with an award of “Four Pinocchios.”

Yet evidence now shows that Trump personally suggested the deployment of 10,000 National Guard troops to prevent violence. For example, a transcript includes the testimony of former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato in January 2022 with Liz Cheney present. Ornato states that he clearly recalled Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops.

Videotapes have also emerged showing Pelosi privately admitting that she and Democratic leadership were responsible for the security failure on Jan. 6.

Moreover, the House is under scrutiny this week for new information on the shooting death of Trump protester Ashli Babbitt by a Capitol Police officer.  

As Turley correctly wrote, "an unjustified shooting of a protester would not fit the left-wing media narrative."

The concerns over the shooting were heightened by the Justice Department’s bizarre review and report, which notably did not state that the shooting was justified. Instead, it declared that it could not prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”

Legal gobbledygook from the Justice Department. 

The Bottom Line

It's long past time for the January 6 committee nonsense to be dead and buried. It was from the beginning — most notably, the Democrats' attempt to convince America that it was a bona fide insurrection — a farce, dog and pony show, kangaroo court, or whatever. This country is about to finally discard all remnants of the miserable for years under the Biden-Harris administration and start making itself great again.