The January 6 Committee Indicts Itself - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
The January 6 Committee Indicts Itself

The required legalese states the complaint as the case of Mark Meadows v. Nancy Pelosi, et al., oral argument is “requested,” and the next heads-up reads “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement.”

With that, the January 6 Committee is off and running in a 248-page detailed trip into a wonderland of blatant untruths and fascist-style police-state meanderings. Where to begin? Let’s start here, with bold print for emphasis supplied:

The filing states:

The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (hereinafter “Select Committee”) is investigating the violent attack on our Capitol on January 6, 2021, and efforts by the former President of the United States to remain in office by ignoring the rulings of state and federal courts and disrupting the peaceful transition of power.

Stop. Note the clever lie. In fact, “ignoring the rulings of state and federal courts and disrupting the peaceful transition of power” was, in reality, obeying the U.S. Constitution. That would be, in this case, Article II, Section 1, which specifically states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…

Ignored? In the run-up to the January 6, 2021, convening of Congress — specifically on December 4, 2020 — Newsweek reported that “dozens of Pennsylvania state legislators” had “sent a letter Friday asking the state’s congressional leaders to dispute Pennsylvania’s 2020 election results before the U.S. Congress meets to count electoral votes on January 6.”

Which is to say, “dozens of Pennsylvania state legislators” were upholding their constitutional responsibility to do their jobs and see to it that the certification of the electoral votes was honest. And the January 6 Committee is demanding that this constitutional duty of state legislators be blatantly ignored and overridden.


In January of 2017, when Congress met to certify the 2016 election, now-January 6 Committee member Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland stood up on the House floor and said this:

I have an objection (to certifying Trump’s election) because 10 of the 29 electoral votes cast by Florida were cast by electors not lawfully certified because they violated Florida’s prohibition against dual officeholders.

Raskin wasn’t alone, either. Also objecting to what is suddenly now being called by the January 6 Committee the “peaceful transition of power” were the following Democratic Members of Congress:

  • Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO);
  • Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI);
  • Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX);
  • Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA);
  • Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA);
  • Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI);
  • Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO); and
  • Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA).

And twice before trying to deny Trump’s certification in 2017, Democrats in 2005 and 2001 attempted to block the certification of Republican George W. Bush’s two electoral wins. When Trump supporters in state legislatures or Congress attempted to do the same because of considerable and justifiable doubt about the honesty of the vote — a repeated problem in multiple past Pennsylvania elections — this has suddenly become “disrupting the peaceful transition of power.

Note, as recalled here at the Post Millenial, here is a flashback headline about the violence from the left when Trump was inaugurated in 2017:

FLASHBACK: Violent riots gripped DC during Trump’s 2017 inauguration

Over 200 people were arrested during the riots. Police said that rioters damaged vehicles, ignited small fires, and destroyed multiple businesses across the city.

And the investigations of all of that by Speaker Pelosi? Zip, nada, zero.

Next, the committee says this:

Testimony and documents regarding post-election efforts by the Trump campaign, the Trump legal team, and Mr. Meadows to create false slates of Presidential electors, or to pressure or persuade state and local officials and legislators to take actions to change the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election;


There is no such thing as “false slates of Presidential electors.” Both parties, in the run-up to the convening of the Electoral College, select members of their own party for this task. When it is finally determined which candidate has won the popular vote of a given state, only then do the winner’s supporters appointed to the Electoral College gain legal recognition and gather to vote to certify the winner. To suggest that this does not happen is a blatant falsity.

And note: in the last stages of the 2020 presidential campaign, I personally was asked to serve as a Trump elector. Alas, a later decision was made to reward another Trump supporter, which was fine by me. But in fact, I was asked and it was perfectly legal. That’s how the system works. One only gets to cast a legal vote when the popular vote has been certified and yes, certification can and has been challenged, frequently by Democrats.

Next, the filing says it wants:

Testimony and documents regarding the plan, in the days before January 6th, to replace Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with Mr. Jeffrey Clark so that the Department could corruptly change its conclusions regarding election fraud.

Full stop. One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry at this backward fantasy. As repeatedly documented, the Department of Justice itself had become a sewer of corruption, with various leaders and members of the FBI plotting and scheming how to interfere in the 2016 election and then “stop” and unseat a sitting president whose politics they did not like. The idea of appointing Clark was to exactly stop the already proven corruption of the department from corruptly giving a pass to a rigged election instead of investigating that corruption.

Then there’s the fairy tale about Republicans appointed to the January 6 Committee. It pretends that Pelosi has appointed “Republicans” to the committee — but no one is fooled. Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Rep. Adam Kinzinger were hand-selected by Pelosi, over the objections of House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy. The game here is that both Cheney and Kinzinger, like every Democrat on the committee, are Trump haters. They are on that committee for one reason and one reason only — to get Donald Trump.

The presence of Cheney and Kinzinger, and now the release of this 248-page legal filing, has confirmed — yet again —  that the January 6 Committee is the Pelosi equivalent of those Stalinesque show trials of the old Soviet Union. Guilty verdict first, trial later, as it were.

Note well that the committee filing says:

“The Select Committee Is Validly Constituted and Has Issued Valid Subpoenas.”

Not only is the committee not validly Constituted — again, no Trump supporters allowed. But the cute game with the bit about issuing “valid subpoenas”?

Notice that it is abundantly obvious that subpoenas have only gone in one direction — to Trump supporters. There have been no subpoenas for Pelosi or any of the members of the show trial to find out their role on January 6 — both before and after the events at the Capitol. Which, in turn, is only more evidence of the show trial nature of this farce.

In short? This 248-page legal finding is nothing less than a 248-page indictment of the January 6 Committee itself — both as a committee and individually of the committee members.

If, in fact, Republicans, as predicted, win control of the House in November, one of the serious tasks that should begin is to set up a select committee to investigate the January 6 Committee and all of its members.

The horrendous, decidedly purposeful miscarriage of justice that is this dangerous farce cannot be allowed to stand.

Jeffrey Lord
Follow Their Stories:
View More
Jeffrey Lord, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is a former aide to Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp. An author and former CNN commentator, he writes from Pennsylvania at His new book, Swamp Wars: Donald Trump and The New American Populism vs. The Old Order, is now out from Bombardier Books.
Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!