Republican congressional leaders are wrong on both principle and politics in fighting against a bipartisan commission analyzing the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot.
A commission, specifically one with Republican input, would be useful for numerous purposes. Of course, many Democrats intend to use the commission as purely a political cudgel ahead of the midterm elections, but there are legitimate functions the commission could perform, but only if Republicans are involved in creating it and conducting its work.
If Senate Republicans don’t like the exact provisions of the House bill creating the commission, they should move to amend it, not kill it. Democrats also owe it to the country to make extra efforts to make sure the commission is crafted so as to reassure Republicans it will be bipartisan and fair-minded, not a political hit job.
A neutral but aggressive commission would indeed serve the public weal.
There is still much to be learned about what happened on Jan. 6, and how and why. At least as important, there’s still much to learn that can help authorities better respond to civic emergencies in the future. The Capitol riot came far closer to horrific tragedy than most people realize; a forward-looking commission is needed to ward off future tragedies.
Those who say that criminal investigations are ongoing, as are “security reviews,” miss the point. Much of what needs to be known involves actions that were questionable or wrong without being criminal, and some of the security questions that should be addressed may require executive branch oversight that is uniquely the province of Congress.
Granted, at least some of the focus should be on former President Donald Trump himself. If that makes Republicans uncomfortable, so be it. Their job isn’t to shield one man; their job is to present the facts to the public. As a Washington Examiner editorial titled “Congress, make oversight great again” put it during Trump’s first weeks in office, “Republicans should not repeat the mistake of giving the executive branch a free pass just because it was run by a president of their own party.”
Because the Senate trial of Trump did not admit witnesses, much remains to be known. In general, we already know that Trump did much to stoke the mob, at least some things that were interpreted by the mob as continuing encouragement once they breached the Capitol, and very little to deter the mob’s violence for hours. Still, we do not know precisely what he knew when, what he said when, and what he did behind the scenes. There is a difference between dangerous negligence and deliberate incitement. We deserve to know which of those best describes Trump’s behavior.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is known to have spoken directly to Trump in the early minutes of the melee, with numerous reports characterizing the conversation as a yelling match. It would be not to McCarthy’s discredit, but only (potentially) to Trump’s, to know the precise nature of this call. If McCarthy, to his credit for his strong and rapid reaction, made clear to Trump just how dangerous the situation was and Trump rebuffed specific information to that effect, we need to know it. McCarthy should testify. Likewise, White House aides in touch with Trump during those first few riotous hours also should be deposed.
The goal here isn’t criminal prosecution or political retribution, but public transparency. The transparency isn’t necessary so much to affix blame to Trump (although it might do that as well) as to figure out what sorts of fail-safe procedures might be adopted if future crises find a president either incapacitated or unwilling to act.
If it takes the president to call out the National Guard, and the president isn’t available but the need is obvious, what can be done? Does Congress need to tweak some laws to provide for such an eventuality? Do administrative procedures need to be revisited, even without new statutory language?
For that matter, some of the questions should make Democrats uncomfortable, too. Why was Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser reluctant to mobilize extra policing resources in advance, when some authorities warned such resources might be necessary? What instructions did Speaker Nancy Pelosi give to the House sergeant-at-arms and other elements of House security before the rally and once the rally turned into a conflagration?
For people paying attention, it was obvious before the rally that major violence was possible. Right-wing online buzz was full of such talk. How were authorities caught so unprepared? What better ways, still consonant with freedom, can be adopted in the future so that strong portents and predictions can lead to prevention?
It does no good to say that various investigations — law enforcement, congressional committees — are looking into different aspects of all this. Yes, those probes might produce relevant information, but what’s needed is to put the information all together, comprehensively, rather than to balkanize and bury it in multiple locations where only the most diligent citizens can find time to track it all down.
The proposed commission would feature equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, so it could not approve a report without bipartisan buy-in. In fact, not even subpoenas could be issued without bipartisan agreement. The members would be appointed by partisans in Congress, but they would otherwise be chosen on the apolitical grounds of “significant depth of experience” in relevant fields such as law enforcement, civil liberties, intelligence, and cybersecurity. This is not a recipe for partisan hackery.
Is it really too much to ask that Congress be able to appoint a commission aimed at elucidating facts and making recommendations rather than at securing partisan advantage?
Let nobody forget just how serious, how dangerous, how subversive the riot was. Just because some Democrats harp on this for partisan advantage doesn’t mean Republicans should pretend it never happened.
The riot was a deliberate attempt to stop the legitimate functioning of one of the most important acts in our republic, namely the final vote counting for the government’s chief executive. This publication editorialized immediately that it was “nothing less than a seditious insurrection.” Its premises were based on the proven lie that the election had been stolen. The goal of the president was to convince Congress to exercise authority it did not have to reject the lawfully certified electoral votes from the states. The goal of the insurrection leaders was to stop the votes from being counted, period, by violence if necessary. After the vote was canceled, men walked out of the Capitol building, arms raised in victory, declaring, “We did! We stopped the vote!”
Worse, right-wing chatter showed that much of it was planned beforehand and that more than a few of its leaders (along with significant numbers of chanting followers) had plans to “execute” the vice president of the United States and the speaker of the House. Security video shows that Vice President Mike Pence and his family escaped less than a minute before parts of the mob reached the hall directly outside the holding room the Pences inhabited. And all of this occurred as the president continued his Twitter barrage accusing Pence of a lack of “courage.”
There must be a full accounting for these horrors. Senate Republicans have the power to block a vote on this commission. They ought to use that power to ensure the commission is aimed toward truth-seeking rather than point-scoring. If they use that power simply to kill the commission, so as to cut off inquiry into Trump’s misdeeds, they will be hurting the party while abandoning their duty to the Constitution.
