My Plea to the January 6 Committee

I desperately hope that Donald Trump gets crucified (well, maybe not actually crucified – his followers already worship him – crucifixion will only make that worse).

Having said that, I have another desperate hope – that the January 6 Committee can really prove what it is trying to prove. The “hearings” are trying to make it sound like there is evidence that Trump is a criminal. Unfortunately, so far, there isn’t.

I use the word “hearings” in quotes because these productions are not “hearings” in the standard sense. “Hearings” involve the taking of evidence from witnesses of varying views and the testing of that evidence by people with different views. That’s not what’s going on here. 

This is much more akin to a runaway Grand Jury where only one side asks the questions and where the only witnesses called are those that will say what the prosecutor wants them to say. There is an old saying about Grand Juries that goes, “You can indict a ham sandwich if you want to.” Personally, I think a ham sandwich is a much more valuable addition to the world than Donald Trump is, but that’s not the point here. The point here is that these “hearings” are scripted – literally. The Committee Members are reading from a teleprompter.

And there is no one asking questions from the other side. When this is pointed out, the Committee defends itself by saying that it tried to add more Republicans but that the Republicans refused. Not exactly true. Pelosi refused to allow the Republicans on the Committee that the Republicans proposed – people like Jim Jordan and his unobjective ilk. But who did the Democrats appoint? Objective open-minded independents? Hardly. They appointed: Adam Schiff, the lead manager of the first Trump impeachment; Jamie Raskin, the lead manager of the second Trump impeachment;  and Zoe Lofgren, a manager in the first Trump impeachment. And who are the Republicans? Liz Cheney and Adam Kinsinger, ones who voted in favor of impeachment.

More importantly, though is what the Committee is calling its “evidence.” Again, I fiercely want this “evidence” to be proven true. It’s just that you can’t say yet that it is true even though the Committee keeps doing that.

Of course, there is the hearsay. The Committee is basing its conclusions on testimony from one person about what another person told them. Sometimes it’s even third-hand – what one person was told by another person who, in turn, was told that by a third person. It’s the old game of “telephone.” Cassidy Hutchinson, the hot twenty-something who apparently had more power over this country than any Member of Congress, is a prime example, especially in terms of her most publicized testimony about Trump assaulting a Secret Service Agent.

Then there is the cherry-picking. The Committee shows us clips from the private witness depositions that they have taken. Those clips are compelling, but they are only snippets. Now, they may accurately reflect the entirety of what the witnesses said, but we can’t know that. Any lawyer would love to be able to introduce as evidence only the parts of what witnesses say that helps their cause. Of course, any of those witnesses could come out and say that they have been quoted out of context, and I’m unaware that any have. That’s good, but it still doesn’t mean that those selective slices are evidence. And are we to believe that no witnesses defended the President against these charges? That no one disputed the main assertions of the others? Really?

Sometimes the Committee Members just outright say they have evidence of things that they do not even try to support. During the latest hearings, one Member said they had evidence that the head of the Oath Keepers stopped on his way to D.C. to buy weapons and then ship them to the D.C. area. This assertion has already been denied. Hopefully, there are records of these purchases and shipments. These would not be hard to obtain. But if there are such records, why were they not shown?

And there are the associational connections that are intended by the Committee to serve as proof. Because Person A is associated with Person B, and Person B is associated with Person C, the Committee implies that this means Person A is associated with Person C. That’s the kind of stuff that intelligence agencies use for their purposes. For those purposes, it’s ok. But for proof? No.  

So, here’s my plea to the January 6 Committee – please be careful. Please don’t be sloppy with your assertions. Everything you say must be provable. Everything. The last thing we need is for your investigation of The Big Lie to be in any way a Big Lie as well.