House Panels Launch Review Of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack

TOPSHOT - Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as people try to storm the US Capitol in Washington D.C on January 6, 2021. - Demonstrators breeched security and entered the Capitol as Congress debat... TOPSHOT - Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as people try to storm the US Capitol in Washington D.C on January 6, 2021. - Demonstrators breeched security and entered the Capitol as Congress debated the a 2020 presidential election Electoral Vote Certification. (Photo by Joseph Prezioso / AFP) (Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Seven House committees launched an investigation Thursday into federal handling of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, demanding communications in the month preceding the violent breach and in the days that followed it that might provide further insight into security and intelligence failures.

In letters to 16 agencies, first reported by Politico, the panels requested all communications sent between agency officials regarding Congress’ Jan. 6 session, across the Executive Branch and Congress, when lawmakers certified Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory. The requests demand all relevant documents and messages from Dec. 1, 2020, to Jan. 20, 2021 by early April.

The committee review comes as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) struggled this week to secure bipartisan cooperation for an independent commission to review the federal government’s handling of the attack, which left five people dead, including a Capitol Police officer. The Justice Department has advanced more than 300 federal cases related to the riot.

“We understand that the Department continues to investigate and prosecute individuals involved in the events on January 6, 2021,” they wrote in a letter to the Justice Department. “We are happy to work with you to ensure that the document requests in this letter do not interfere with ongoing investigations and prosecutions.”

The panels pursuing the Jan. 6 response are the Judiciary, Oversight, Armed Services, House Administration, Appropriations, Homeland Security and Intelligence Committees.

The requests prioritized threat and intelligence assessments, security response timelines, disciplinary measures and communications with participants or groups involved or associated with the events.

The letters were issued to the White House, National Archives, Justice Department, FBI, Pentagon, National Guard, Department of Homeland Security, Department of the Interior, U.S. Park Police and the intelligence community.

Pelosi has been pushing for a 1/6 Commission reminiscent of the post-9/11 review authorized nearly two decades ago after the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attacks in 2001. The commission would investigate “the influencing factors that fomented such attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process,” a draft proposal said.

But questions about the scope of what the commission would investigate, including demands by the GOP to review racial justice protests last summer and antifa, have stalled those plans. Earlier this month, Republicans further bristled at Pelosi’s suggestion of Republicans picking four commissioners to Democrats’ seven.

During a press conference on Thursday Pelosi claimed that while Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had expressed initial receptiveness to the commission he later “dumped all over” the proposal that pushed for an investigation into the Capitol riot by a mob of Trump supporters.

“We have to find the truth and we will,” Pelosi told reporters on Thursday. “We’re not walking away from that.”

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. I can’t for the life of me understand why Republicans would want to obstruct efforts to find out the whole truth.
    Could it be…?

  2. Getting public testimony from some of the top insurrectionists will really help the country. You know, it could be run, at least in part, like a Truth and Reconciliation Commission: have some of them come clean, all the way, in public testimony. In exchange, charges would be dropped. That could be offered to some of the them not involved in physical assault, for example. Take the high road. Teachable moments and all that.

  3. Excellent. Don’t wait for #MoscowMitch to drag his feet. So how many of these communications might be subject to executive privilege claims?

    ETA a quote:

    Faced with such requests to the archivist for Trump’s presidential records, the Biden administration would have to weigh institutional interests in confidentiality—for which career officials would likely advocate—against intraparty pressure to release the information. After undertaking such an inquiry, it would not be surprising if the Biden administration determined that the congressional need for the information justified its release, despite its presumptive confidentiality. Trump, however, may disagree, and he may attempt to assert executive privilege to prevent the release of the materials, perhaps even suing the archivist if necessary to enjoin the release of the records on the basis of his assertion.

  4. Avatar for dont dont says:

    They should subpoena Benedict Donald and record his lies to be followed-up with an indictment for lying to Congress.

  5. No investigative commission will be able to effectively look into the insurrection for as long as the reactionaries retain the power to impede, water down or whatabout its findings.
    All three of these things seem to be their goal. Not surprising, in that that party is as heavily invested in limiting the findings as it was in the events that led to the insurrection.
    Per their pattern of behavior, they put their power, and that of their partisans, ahead of the welfare of the country and its government.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

15 more replies

Participants

Avatar for discobot Avatar for ajm Avatar for guineapig Avatar for jackster Avatar for cervantes Avatar for becca656 Avatar for dont Avatar for christianhankel Avatar for pshah Avatar for ericr Avatar for maximus Avatar for euglena4056 Avatar for godwit Avatar for bcgister Avatar for Akimbo Avatar for LeeHarveyGriswold

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: