The Democrat-led January 6 committee seems to have the same objectives of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation: undermining Donald Trump while covering up Democratic wrongdoing.
In the present case, it seems the committee itself is designed not to answer some of the most basic questions at hand. For instance, why wasn’t the Capitol better protected? And what role did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi play — or fail to play — in the massive security failure?
GOP Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona hammered the speaker for her “illegitimate” and “rigged” panel made up of five Democrats and two anti-Trump Republicans.
“In an unprecedented step, she denied House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) selections for the committee. She appointed the anti-Trump, anti-Republican duo of Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), ensuring only members who supported her desired political outcome would serve on the committee,” Biggs wrote in a Wednesday piece for American Greatness.
Arguably, one political outcome being accomplished through the committee’s work is keeping the spotlight from shining on Pelosi.
Trending:
Republicans — like Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, who Pelosi blocked from being on the Jan. 6 committee — have sought answers regarding the security failures, such as why up to 20,000 National Guard troops offered by the Trump Defense Department were not on site ahead of the protest.
Just the News reported — based on an official timeline compiled by the U.S. Capitol Police — the Pentagon offered National Guard troops four days before the Jan. 6 incursion.
Kash Patel — who served as chief of staff to then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller — told the news site, “The Capitol Police timeline shows what we have been saying for the last year — that DOD support via the National Guard was refused by the House and Senate sergeant at arms, who report to Pelosi.”
Kash Patel on the days leading up to Jan 6th… including Trump’s authorization of up to 20,000 National Guard soldiers.
The truth is out there. pic.twitter.com/uCVsRSDdyb
— Suzy (@Suzy_NotSuzy) June 8, 2022
“Now we have it in their own writing, days before Jan. 6. And despite the FBI warning of potential for serious disturbance, no perimeter was established, no agents put on the street, and no fence put up,” Patel added.
Further, as news circulated that then-Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund wanted the Guard deployed ahead of the rally, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser intervened.
The Democrat sent “a preemptive letter [on Jan. 5] to Miller and other Pentagon and Justice Department officials asking that troops not be deployed unless the Metropolitan Police Department approved, citing an incident in summer 2020, when troops were deployed at Lafayette Park near the White House during civil disobedience,” Just the News reported.
If those troops were present, it seems safe to say protesters would not have entered the Capitol, hence no “January 6.”
All of this feels a lot like the Russian probe.
Politifact reported in March 2018 that the only confirmed Republican on Mueller’s team was the special counsel himself. There were 17 attorneys working for the Mueller, at least 12 of whom were registered Democrats.
According to The Wall Street Journal, one of Mueller’s top prosecutors, Andrew Weissmann, attended Clinton’s election night party in November 2016.
Additionally, Fox News reported Russia probe attorney Jeannie Rhee represented the Clinton Foundation in 2015 and was a max donor to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential run.
Do you think the Jan. 6 committee should seek testimony from Pelosi?
Was the Mueller probe designed to cover up Clinton campaign and/or FBI wrongful conduct?
We learned new details last month at Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann‘s trial. He met with FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016 and passed on faulty information meant to imply a covert tie between the Trump Organization and a Kremlin-linked Russian bank.
Don’t let the D.C. jury’s not-guilty verdict fool you. Sussmann did not deny the meeting happened, but that he misrepresented to the FBI the purpose of it.
Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager Robby Mook testified at Sussmann’s trial that the candidate herself green-lit the plan to pass on the unsubstantiated claim to the media.
Then there was the infamous Steele dossier used by the FBI to apply for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrants to surveil 2016 Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Patel, while working as counsel for House Intelligence Committee GOP Rep. Devin Nunes, tracked down through bank records that the dossier had been paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
In December 2019, the presiding FISA court judge, in a rare public order, rebuked the FBI for withholding vital information regarding the origins of the dossier.
Somehow, the Clinton campaign’s role in perpetrating the fake Russia collusion narrative was not the focus of Mueller’s report, though that was in reality a major component of the whole affair.
Is the Jan. 6 committee another elaborate undertaking designed to keep some of the most important aspects of what happened that day from being addressed?
Time will tell, but it sure seems that way.
