Despite Ample Evidence, Christian Nationalism Mostly Absent From Final Jan. 6 Report

"the committee’s final report, released late on Thursday (Dec. 22), an 845-page document, mentioned Christian nationalism by name exactly once, and only in passing." - RNS

618 reads

There are 8 Comments

Bert Perry's picture

It strikes me that by appointing only members amenable to putting Trump in jail, the committee is more or less preventing anyone from prosecuting Trump, because a large amount of information not contributing to the "Democratic hypothesis" is going to be kept in parts unknown.

Which means that any prosecutor who would want to use the report will know going in that he would be violating the defendant's right to exculpatory evidence.  One would figure that a committee composed significantly of lawyers (4 of 9 members), and dedicated to the business of legislation, would be up to speed on this pretty basic Constitutional right, but perhaps not.  Or perhaps they knew darned well that it would go nowhere, and so they were just playing games for the press.  

Not making excuses for Trump here.  I remember hearing about the march and thinking immediately "this will not go well", and I didn't know the tenth of it.  But this committee is a great example of why Congressional investigations tend to go absolutely nowhere--they are done more for the press than for justice.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Kevin Miller's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

It strikes me that by appointing only members amenable to putting Trump in jail, the committee is more or less preventing anyone from prosecuting Trump, because a large amount of information not contributing to the "Democratic hypothesis" is going to be kept in parts unknown.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Democrats desire to have more Republicans on the committee, but most Republicans refused? So it really wasn't the committee that is preventing anyone from prosecuting Trump, rather it was the Republicans who were trying to make sure that Trump couldn't be prosecuted by having the committee comprised only of certain people.

Bert Perry's picture

Kevin, the GOP provided a list of candidates for the committee, and since most of them were on Trump's side, the Democrats refused.  The Democrats were thus violating a longstanding tradition of letting each party put their own delegates onto the committee, and their stipulation was that any Republican to be admitted had to be in favor of removing Trump from office.  In rhetorical terms, that's called "stacking the deck". 

The big thing that's preventing a prosecution, however, is something the Democrats always had the power to do, given the 7-2 or 7-6 split they were guaranteed to have.  It is that they've only sent a small portion of the information they discussed to the DOJ, and are keeping the rest of it in parts unknown.  That prevents, to a great degree, the provision of exculpatory evidence.

So the exclusion of opposing viewpoints is blameworthy, but the withholding of other evidence is hilarious, and shows exactly how much respect the Democrats have for the Constitution--e.g. "none".

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Kevin Miller's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Kevin, the GOP provided a list of candidates for the committee, and since most of them were on Trump's side, the Democrats refused.  The Democrats were thus violating a longstanding tradition of letting each party put their own delegates onto the committee, and their stipulation was that any Republican to be admitted had to be in favor of removing Trump from office.  In rhetorical terms, that's called "stacking the deck".

Most of them? The Democrats only had problems with 2 of the 5, not most of them. The Republicans then pulled all 5 nominations, putting themselves in the position of not wanting any of their own members on the committee.

Do you think the Republicans would be allowing all Democratic committee nominees if the Republicans were in power and running an investigation of Hunter Biden? I doubt they would allow Nancy Pelosi on a Hunter Biden investigation committee.

 

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Most of them? The Democrats only had problems with 2 of the 5, not most of them. The Republicans then pulled all 5 nominations, putting themselves in the position of not wanting any of their own members on the committee.

Precisely.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Bert Perry's picture

Yes, Pelosi just happened to veto the highest profile people that would have shown the commission to be the fraud that it was. As this CNN article shows, there was no other rationale that Pelosi could have had, since she agreed to seat at least one other person who voted not to certify the election.

And if "being a partisan hack" was the criteria, why on earth was Adam Schiff there?  He's far worse and far more duplicitous than anyone the Republicans have to offer in Congress.  

The Democrats are going to learn the hard way that when you run a kangaroo court, real courts are going to notice.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Dan Miller's picture

My suspicion is that the real motive for this committee was to tire the American people of committees investigating things. The Biden family is unbelievably corrupt. We'll see if anything changes. 

Kevin Miller's picture

Dan Miller wrote:

My suspicion is that the real motive for this committee was to tire the American people of committees investigating things. The Biden family is unbelievably corrupt. We'll see if anything changes. 

I'm not sure if "one side" will ever tire of investigating that corrupt "other side."