US Capitol attack: 6 takeaways from the final Jan 6 hearing

Six key takeaways from the US Capitol attack hearing on January 6th
Nine bipartisan House committee members released a 160-page summary of their findings after the most extensive investigation into the use of violence to obstruct Joe Biden’s nomination as the 46th President.

The congressional committee investigating the main attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, concluded after a year and a half of investigation that former President Donald Trump and also some of his associates had broken the law, plotted against the country, and should be prosecuted.

A bipartisan group of nine House members issued a 160-page summary of their main findings on the violence used to derail Joe Biden’s nomination as the 46th President following their final meeting.

By a 9-0 vote, the panel approved the final report and urged the Justice Department to investigate whether Trump and his supporters should face charges in four areas.

Here are some of my findings: US Capitol attack

The committee upheld Trump’s position.

The committee largely ignored its findings regarding intelligence and security lapses at the Capitol prior to and during the attack during its hour-long presentation. Furthermore, the committee did not delve deeply into the data on the rise of domestic extremism that it gathered.

The committee’s intention to use its final report to hold Trump accountable for his actions in attempting to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power following a presidential election had been hinted at for months. According to the panel’s vice chair, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., every president in our country’s history has supported this orderly transfer of power.

The committee’s final report’s executive summary is a remarkable account of a president’s futile attempt to retain power after losing the 2020 election to Biden.

Despite the fact that no new information has been added since the panel’s series of public hearings this summer, the report is the first to compile all of the information in one place.

Key takeaways from the final Jan. 6 committee hearing - Los Angeles Times

Even Trump supporters “ultimately admitted that they lacked actual evidence sufficient to mainly change the election result, and that what they were attempting was illegal,” according to the report.

The report outlined Trump’s steps to retain power after losing the 2020 election, including: first, fabricating evidence of widespread fraud despite being informed that his claims were false; second, setting up phoney slates of electors in Biden-winning states; third, putting pressure on state officials, the Justice Department, and Vice President Mike Pence to annul the results; and finally, rallying a mob of his supporters to march on the Capitol, where he was met with protests.

The central cause of the January 6 events, according to the report, was one man, former President Donald Trump, who was followed by many others. “That evidence has resulted in an overarching and straightforward conclusion,” according to the report. “Without him, none of the events of January 6 would have occurred.”

Two of the committee’s top advisers, Hope Hicks and Kellyanne Conway, provided new information.

Since the conclusion of its previous hearings on Monday, the committee has released the results of its research. Among them were the panel’s initial interviews with former President Barack Obama’s top advisers, Hope Hicks and Kellyanne Conway.

The former president told Hicks, a senior White House adviser, that “nobody will care about my legacy if I lose,” in response to her concerns about how the events of January 6 might affect Trump’s legacy. As a result, there will be no difficulties. The only thing that matters is that you come out on top.

Conway’s testimony was also made public by the committee. She told Trump that January 6 had been a “terrible day” for her. “No,” he said, she remembered. People are furious. They’re furious.

Jan. 6 insurrection hearing: Key takeaways in case against Trump - WHYY

The events of January 6 harmed Trump, but he is still running for president in 2024.

The committee’s work over the past year has already harmed Trump’s reputation as the 45th President of the United States, as well as his political standing. On Monday, Cheney reiterated that Trump should never hold a position of authority in our country again. He is unsuitable for any position.

Nonetheless, Trump has declared his intention to run for president again in order to reclaim the position he claims was taken away from him. Despite a rocky campaign announcement and a slew of potential criminal investigations, Trump remains a key figure in the Republican Party and is widely supported. He has also overcome previous political and legal challenges.

The legacy of the committee is still being debated.

The legacy of the Jan. 6 committee is no longer in their hands; federal prosecutors will decide it in the coming months. The special counsel appointed to mainly oversee investigations into Trump’s actions, Jack Smith, will have to decide whether the information provided by the committee, combined with the Justice Department’s own documentation, warrants charging the former president with any crimes.

That is still debatable. Committee members insisted on Monday that Trump and those close to him violated four laws in planning and carrying out the Capitol attack. Insurrection against the government is one of them, as is obstructing or influencing an official proceeding, plotting against the American government, lying to it, and making false statements to it.

If those or other allegations are pursued against Trump, it will be a watershed moment in the country’s history in terms of holding the country’s leader accountable for his actions. However, the special counsel and, ultimately, Attorney General Merrick Garland will make the decision to proceed. Other Justice Department officials must make a decision on whether to charge Trump’s advisers.

Republicans, who will take over the House in January, have stated their intention to delegitimize the committee. The committee’s work will be investigated, and California Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who is running for Speaker the following year, has demanded that staff and lawmakers keep records.

Many committee members have received no political benefit from their participation.

The House careers of four of the panel’s nine members will end on January 6, along with the committee.

Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) have announced that they will also not seek reelection in 2022. As a result of his frequent criticism of Trump and selection to serve on the Jan. 6 committee, Kinzinger faced stiff opposition from within his own party.

Elaine Luria of Virginia and Cheney of Wyoming will both lose their House seats in 2022. Cheney lost her Wyoming primary election after being chastised by party leaders and voters for her opposition to Trump and determination to hold him accountable for the events of January 6. Luria was also defeated in the general election in Virginia.

Watch Jan. 6 committee hearing: What to know on final meeting

None of the four have expressed any regret for their participation on the committee. Many of its members, however, are unlikely to use it as a stepping stone into politics.

Before President Joe Biden informed Democrats of his preference for rearranging the presidential primary calendar, states began to object. The Iowa caucuses, which have served as the leadoff state for the past 40 years, must be held at least eight days before any other nominating contest, according to state law.

According to state law, the presidential primary in New Hampshire must be held first, by at least a week. New Hampshire has hosted the nation’s first primary election for more than a century. The DNC’s rule-making body, however, approved a revised order for early voting in the 2024 presidential primary on December 2: South Carolina first, followed by New Hampshire and Nevada on the same day, Georgia, and then Michigan.

States may pass laws that limit what other states can and cannot do, but these laws are void. Any state could pass legislation requiring it to vote first without affecting the other states. So, what happens if state law contradicts national party leaders’ preferred voting order? If a state wants its delegates to be counted among the total number of delegates for the national nominating process, the statute must be amended.

Why the abrupt changes?

The Democratic National Committee is currently reviewing the new calendar, which has been in the works for years. The party has long considered scrapping the time-consuming and perplexing caucus process in favour of pitting more diverse states against predominantly white states. The failure of the Iowa caucuses in 2020 hastened the process.

Due to a telephone backlog caused by the failure of a new smartphone app designed to calculate and report results, the party was unable to report the final results for nearly a week after the competition. Despite the fact that Pete Buttigieg, former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders finished almost tied for first place, The Associated Press was unable to declare a winner due to numerous irregularities and inconsistencies in the results reporting.

Biden finished fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire that year before capturing the Democratic nomination in South Carolina, the first state with a majority Black Democratic base. Following that decisive victory, voters across the country rallied behind Biden, propelling him to the top of a crowded field of contenders. As a result of its ascension to the top spot, South Carolina will be in a prominent position in 2024.

edited and proofread by nikita sharma

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker