How the January 6th Commission was already successful

“Regardless of Pelosi’s reasoning, her decision to reject the two most famous Republicans, Jordan and Banks, advocated by McCarthy, could be perceived as bipartisan by the Commission, or its final. It even fate the possibility that the findings of a scholarship would be considered independent. “

I don’t think it was completely wrong in the broadest sense. As shown in the seven hearings so far and the final report produced by the Commission, it is still completely unclear whether the Commission’s findings will change many minds.

However, I absolutely One of the central claims that underpins the work is wrong: the partisan composition of the Commission will prevent the Commission from letting key insiders of the Trump White House testify. ..

Not only was the Commission able to interview many of Trump’s major players on January 6, but they also used their testimony to build a convincing proceeding against the former President.

From time to time, the Commission spliced ​​together these series of interviews-Top Trump’s aide claimed that there was no evidence of election fraud, Trump was repeatedly told that fact, and he chose to ignore it. did.

Whether or not the Commission and its findings actually change the mind, it’s a surprising achievement.

I wasn’t the only one who assumed that I would never get the access and candidness that the Commission actually got.

McCarthy pulled all five in the face of Pelosi’s nomination of two of the committee’s candidates.

The problem McCarthy caused was that if the Commission had access to some of the key figures in the Trump administration, he wouldn’t know about it until it was too late, and no one would sit and represent the Commission. Protorump perspective.

point: Whether it makes a criminal referral-for Trump or anyone else in his orbit-The January 6 Commission has already succeeded in getting deep into the inner circle of the former president. I didn’t see it coming.