The Jan. 6 committee is turning up the heat on former President Trump and his allies but are there “revelations” still more sizzle than steak?

The past few weeks have brought a series of revelations about the involvement of allies of former President Trump in the days leading up to Jan. 6.  

In the span of just a week, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) revealed that the former president pressured him to intervene to unwind the election even after Jan. 6. Texts from Ginni Thomas to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows have also surfaced, showing the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas urged him to find a way to keep the president in office. And a federal judge found it “more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6.” 

The events give momentum to a committee many in the GOP have sought to dismiss as political, even as growing evidence seemingly reinforces the purpose of its investigation. 

“When you have an independent judge or a member of the Republican Party say these things, I think it can catch the attention of people, who might otherwise be inclined to kind of brush it off as partisan politics, to say, ‘Oh, wait a minute, a judge made that finding? Wait a minute, Mo Brooks is saying this?’ ” said Barbara McQuade, a former federal prosecutor. 

“I think it could matter and could help bolster the political appeal and the credibility of what the select committee is trying to do,” she added. 

However, gaining that kind of apolitical credibility is a steep challenge for the panel, which only includes two Republican members after the GOP largely boycotted it as a left-wing “witch hunt.”

“Normally, the way that committees communicate to the public that their investigations are fair and serious is by showing bipartisanship, but in this case, [it’s] a very odd situation where the only Republican members of the committee have been essentially excommunicated by their party — precisely to prevent it from being viewed as being bipartisan,” said Michael Stern, who has served as senior counsel for the House and as a Senate investigator. “How they navigate that, I think, will be quite a challenge,” Stern added. 

This all as the committee is poised to soon kick off “primetime” public hearings, which could kick-off as early as May. 

Those hearings, says Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), will not only be a chance to hold two men accountable— Dan Scavino, Trump’s former deputy chief of staff for communications, and Peter Navarro, a former trade adviser — it will also provide each member of the committee an opportunity to make a compelling case before a growing audience. 

The panel has weighed holding their hearings at night — bucking the practice of daytime hearings in the hopes of captivating those who may have a better opportunity to watch from home in the evening.

But while the new evidence might buoy interest in the committee’s hearings and lend credibility to their efforts, a dwindling timeline has also left lawmakers split on just what to do about it. 

While Thompson has suggested a willingness to go as far as subpoenaing Ginni Thomas, the committee has not yet collectively made a decision on how to proceed with either her or Brooks. 

Either could be a delicate matter for the panel.  

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) has said the committee should call Thomas and also expressed an openness to having Brooks speak with the committee’s investigators. 

“The significant thing about Mo Brooks’s statement was that he told us that former President Trump continues to try to rescind the election and install himself as president. So you know, I have never felt that the insurrectionists and coup plotters have accepted the Biden presidency, and it’s an important warning to us that this is a continuing emergency,” Raskin said. 

Brooks himself did not reject the idea.  

“I will take that under advisement if they ever contact me,” he told Politico.  

One area where the panel’s lawmakers are completely aligned is the value of the court decision that largely backed their assertion that Trump committed a crime in seeking to unwind the election. 

A federal judge ruled that there was a reasonable likelihood that Trump and his legal adviser John Eastman committed at least two felonies, saying there was enough evidence to undermine their claims of attorney-client privilege in the face of a select committee subpoena. 

“The illegality of the plan was obvious,” Judge David Carter wrote in his decision. 

“Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” he added later. “Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower — it was a coup in search of a legal theory.”  

During their most recent hearing, nearly every member of the committee used their time to reference the decision with the panel, and in an official statement which called it a warning sign and said that “a failure to pursue accountability could set the stage for a repeat of Jan. 6.”

However, it is important to note that there are limits to Carter’s ruling. He reached this conclusion in a civil lawsuit, so it does not have direct implications for any criminal charges that could be brought against Trump. But his ruling does bolster the case for prosecuting the former president—and place additional pressure on the Justice Department to do so.

2 thoughts on “Jan. 6 Committee Turns Up The Heat On Trump And His Allies!”
  1. Biden needs to be impeached for lying about his son and everything else he says

  2. I like the valuable info you provide on your articles. I抣l bookmark your blog and take a look at once more here regularly. I’m somewhat certain I will be informed a lot of new stuff proper here! Best of luck for the following!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.