The Jan. 6 committee charade

First, Cheney recited “how one witness described phone calls from people interested in that witness’ testimony.” The witness said the caller stressed that the witness should be a “team player” to “stay in good graces in Trumpworld.”

Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what’s going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!

Then Cheney discussed “a call received by one of our witnesses.” The witness described the caller’s message this way: “He knows you’re loyal and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.” From that, Cheney said, “I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns.”

It was indeed a serious allegation. But that’s all Cheney said. She offered no details, no names, no timing, no context, no story — no nothing. Just a sensational, anonymous “without identifying any of the individuals involved” tidbit to tease the public and the media and get them talking before the committee’s next hearing. As the committee’s TV consultant might say, end it with a cliffhanger and ensure the public will stay tuned for the next exciting episode.

But here’s the thing. We have now found out who those two examples — “one witness” and “one of our witnesses” — were. They were one and the same person. And that person was none other than Hutchinson, who was sitting right in front of Cheney as Cheney spoke those words.

Yet Cheney didn’t tell the public about that. Instead, with her anonymous tease, she set off lots of leaking and speculation that kept people talking until the committee’s next hearing. The reporting of Betsy Woodruff Swan and Kyle Cheney at Politico revealed that both of the persons cited were in fact Hutchinson.

It was a kind of charade. This is very serious, Cheney said, but I won’t tell you anything else. In what way is that the purpose of a congressional investigating committee? And there was no one on the committee who had the courage and independence of mind to say to Cheney, “The person you’re referring to is sitting right here. Ms. Hutchinson, tell us what happened…”

Indeed, no one on the committee said a word during the entire hearing, other than Cheney and Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS). The others all sat there silently. Not only are committee members, seven Democrats and two Nancy Pelosi-picked Republicans, Cheney and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), in lockstep on committee business, but they are determined to maintain silence beyond the script of each hearing.

All of which makes the point yet again that it would be a very good thing for the committee to have some Republican-appointed Republican members. It’s not that those theoretical GOP members would defend the Jan. 6 riot — they would not — or even defend the actions of Trump. At the very least, they would ensure that the committee abides by long-established procedures and that if it did not, then the public would at least learn about it.

The fault originally lies with Pelosi, who created the Jan. 6 select committee. House rules and practice dictate that the minority be allowed to choose members of the committee. But when House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) submitted five choices, Pelosi broke a long precedent by vetoing two of them. Pelosi did not try to hide or talk around the fact that she had taken unprecedented action. “The unprecedented nature of Jan. 6 demands this unprecedented decision,” she said at the time. The move was so momentous Politico reported it “sent shock waves through the House.”

Pelosi’s decision stood in contrast to that of former House Speaker John Boehner, who in 2014 created the select committee on Benghazi. Following practice, Boehner allowed Pelosi, then the minority leader, to appoint five members to the committee. They were all staunchly opposed to the investigation. One of them, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who now serves on the Jan. 6 committee, spent much of his time demanding that the Benghazi committee be disbanded. The committee’s hearings were quite adversarial. Democrats talked a lot, and the Republican majority was not allowed to dictate every word said in every hearing because that is not the way congressional hearings are supposed to operate.

In the Jan. 6 matter, after Pelosi vetoed two of McCarthy’s choices, McCarthy reacted by pulling all of his nominees — in effect boycotting the committee. There has been a lot of second-guessing about that decision. I recently communicated with a well-connected Republican and asked for the best case for McCarthy’s action. The speaker violated precedent, the Republican said. That was an action that will do long-term damage to the House of Representatives. Going along with Pelosi’s actions and appointing only Pelosi-approved members would have allowed Democrats to claim that the committee was legitimate and operating in accordance with the history of the House.

Also, the Republican said, the House is a strongly majoritarian institution. The majority has near-dictatorial power in a committee. The Jan. 6 committee would not have to abide by rules or practices calling for Republicans to be included in interviews of witnesses or other committee proceedings. There seems little doubt the majority would have kept the minority in the dark on important concerns. Even Doug Letter, the House general counsel, recently said the committee does not have to abide by party-based practices such as dividing time for questioning.

In other words, McCarthy knew that 1) Pelosi had demolished precedent in setting up the committee, 2) she would likely not run the committee by established procedures, and 3) Republican participation would give the committee a veneer of legitimacy. He chose not to participate.

In reaction, Pelosi appointed two Republicans, Cheney and Kinzinger, for their determined opposition to Trump. So far, as far as the public face of the committee is concerned, both have acted in lockstep with their fellow Pelosi-appointed members who are Democrats. So yes, there are two Republicans on the committee. But it is a one-sided committee.

But still, there are questions. Seeing the committee in operation, seeing how one-sided the arrangement is in practice, has made some observers conclude that even with all of McCarthy’s legitimate objections, someone should be on the committee to point out the obvious. For example, when Hutchinson told her now-challenged story about Trump physically attacking his Secret Service detail inside the presidential limo, no one on the committee mentioned that committee investigators had already talked to the two officials whom Hutchinson said were her sources. What did they have to say about it? No one whispered a word. Later came reports that the Secret Service disputed Hutchinson’s account. Now, it’s not clear what happened, and some Democrats are trying to back away from the story. The public would know more if someone on the committee had just broken ranks and noted that the two witnesses had already testified.

Then, on the witness tampering allegation, opposition party members might have pointed out that the examples Cheney was citing were both from the person sitting right there in the room, under oath. Could they just ask Hutchinson what happened — instead of doing the TV tease thing?

The process a committee observes in its investigations means something. When a committee throws an established process out the window, that means something, too. And that is what the Jan. 6 committee has done. It’s a shame there is no opposition party voice inside the committee to let the public know what’s going on.

For a deeper dive into many of the topics covered in the Daily Memo, please listen to my podcast, The Byron York Show — available on the Ricochet Audio Network and everywhere else podcasts can be found. You can use this link to subscribe.