Just hours after his inauguration on January 20, President Trump pardoned more than 1,500 people convicted of offenses related to the events of January 6, 2021. He commuted the sentences of fourteen additional people whose cases for a full pardon are still under review.
Earlier that morning, to less fanfare, President Biden had issued “preemptive pardons”—a type of presidential pardon with no historical precedent—to all the members and staff of the House Select Committee on January 6 and to all the U.S. Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan police officers who testified before that committee.
What could better illustrate that what happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 has become a political Rorschach test on which Americans remain deeply divided?
Partisans on the Left accept the official narrative of the Democrats and the corporate press, believing that January 6 amounted to an insurrection and a violent attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Partisans on the Right believe that however bad the events of that day were, the federal government’s reaction has been even worse, amounting to a weaponization of the Department of Justice to criminalize certain political views.
Many ordinary Americans are left wondering what to believe. With those Americans in mind, it is helpful to sift through what we have learned about January 6 over the past four years—and to note the things that we still don’t know.
The official report of the House Select Committee, which runs to more than 800 pages, is too deeply biased to give much help. This was foreordained given the hyper-partisan way the Select Committee was formed. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s two Republican appointments to the committee—Representatives Jim Jordan and Jim Banks—and instead appointed two virulently anti-Trump Republicans, Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
The Select Committee’s report, issued in December 2022, omitted important information about January 6 and failed to address many lingering questions about the government’s role and response. Its partisan (and specifically anti-Trump) purpose can be deduced from its recommendations: that the Department of Justice pursue criminal charges against Trump and that Congress bar Trump from ever again holding federal office.
In some instances, the Select Committee showed a blatant disregard for facts. It claimed, for example, that Trump was aware of violence at the Capitol for more than three hours—187 minutes, to be exact—before he took action to intervene. Cheney referred to this as a “supreme dereliction of duty.” But in fact, according to a timeline of events compiled by The New York Times (and corroborated by The Washington Post), no more than 25 minutes passed between the reported breach of the Capitol at 2:13 p.m. and Trump’s first tweet addressing the situation at 2:38 p.m., when he wrote, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” About 30 minutes later, Trump again took to Twitter to address the demonstrators: “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order—respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”
More important than the report’s factual errors are the serious questions never investigated by the Select Committee. Why did Democrat congressional leaders turn down repeated offers of National Guard troops to protect the Capitol that day? Why was security so lax outside the Capitol despite expectations of a large demonstration? How many FBI informants and other undercover federal law enforcement officials were in the crowd? What communication did the FBI or FBI informants have with protest organizers ahead of the event? Why wasn’t then-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund told there were federal informants in the crowd? Why did the U.S. Capitol Police open the doors and allow demonstrators into the building? Why did federal law enforcement authorities demand cell phone location data for the thousands of people who were outside the Capitol but broke no laws? Why does the FBI still have no idea who planted the pipe bombs near the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee on the evening of January 5?
Defenders of the official narrative accuse those who ask such questions of being conspiracists. But until those questions are answered, our understanding of January 6—no matter our political leanings—will be incomplete.
imprimis.hillsdale.edu
Earlier that morning, to less fanfare, President Biden had issued “preemptive pardons”—a type of presidential pardon with no historical precedent—to all the members and staff of the House Select Committee on January 6 and to all the U.S. Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan police officers who testified before that committee.
What could better illustrate that what happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 has become a political Rorschach test on which Americans remain deeply divided?
Partisans on the Left accept the official narrative of the Democrats and the corporate press, believing that January 6 amounted to an insurrection and a violent attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Partisans on the Right believe that however bad the events of that day were, the federal government’s reaction has been even worse, amounting to a weaponization of the Department of Justice to criminalize certain political views.
Many ordinary Americans are left wondering what to believe. With those Americans in mind, it is helpful to sift through what we have learned about January 6 over the past four years—and to note the things that we still don’t know.
The official report of the House Select Committee, which runs to more than 800 pages, is too deeply biased to give much help. This was foreordained given the hyper-partisan way the Select Committee was formed. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s two Republican appointments to the committee—Representatives Jim Jordan and Jim Banks—and instead appointed two virulently anti-Trump Republicans, Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
The Select Committee’s report, issued in December 2022, omitted important information about January 6 and failed to address many lingering questions about the government’s role and response. Its partisan (and specifically anti-Trump) purpose can be deduced from its recommendations: that the Department of Justice pursue criminal charges against Trump and that Congress bar Trump from ever again holding federal office.
In some instances, the Select Committee showed a blatant disregard for facts. It claimed, for example, that Trump was aware of violence at the Capitol for more than three hours—187 minutes, to be exact—before he took action to intervene. Cheney referred to this as a “supreme dereliction of duty.” But in fact, according to a timeline of events compiled by The New York Times (and corroborated by The Washington Post), no more than 25 minutes passed between the reported breach of the Capitol at 2:13 p.m. and Trump’s first tweet addressing the situation at 2:38 p.m., when he wrote, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” About 30 minutes later, Trump again took to Twitter to address the demonstrators: “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order—respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”
More important than the report’s factual errors are the serious questions never investigated by the Select Committee. Why did Democrat congressional leaders turn down repeated offers of National Guard troops to protect the Capitol that day? Why was security so lax outside the Capitol despite expectations of a large demonstration? How many FBI informants and other undercover federal law enforcement officials were in the crowd? What communication did the FBI or FBI informants have with protest organizers ahead of the event? Why wasn’t then-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund told there were federal informants in the crowd? Why did the U.S. Capitol Police open the doors and allow demonstrators into the building? Why did federal law enforcement authorities demand cell phone location data for the thousands of people who were outside the Capitol but broke no laws? Why does the FBI still have no idea who planted the pipe bombs near the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee on the evening of January 5?
Defenders of the official narrative accuse those who ask such questions of being conspiracists. But until those questions are answered, our understanding of January 6—no matter our political leanings—will be incomplete.
What We Know and What We Don’t About January 6
Defenders of the official narrative accuse those who ask such questions of being conspiracists. But until those questions are answered, our understanding of January 6—no matter our political leanings—will be incomplete.
imprimis.hillsdale.edu
