
<p>To give The January 6<sup>th</sup> Committee more credibility than it deserves, the statements from the Committee – and from those in support of the committee’s objectives, especially the news media – are deceptive. ; </p>



<p>Neither the work of the Committee nor the reporting is an objective presentation of the facts. ; Rather it is a propaganda-style narrative that began with prejudgment and proceeded with a biased narrative. ;</p>



<p>Propaganda narratives depend not only on the selection of “facts” and “evidence” out of context but on the perpetration of lies.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-lie-1-the-committee-is-bipartisan"><strong>Lie #1 … The Committee is bipartisan</strong></h2>



<p>While that lie is advanced and accepted by the most hardline partisans, anyone looking at the makeup of the Committee with an objective and rational mind would see through that prevarication. ; While two of the members were officially registered and elected Republicans, they aligned themselves with the mission and goals for which the Committee was created by Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats.</p>



<p>Congresswoman Liz Cheney and Congressman Adam Kinzinger were not named to the Committee by the Republican leadership – which has been the historic tradition of the House. ; They were appointed by Democrat Speaker Pelosi. ; They, like the Democrats on the Committee, were selected by Pelosi because of their strong articulated anti-Trump, anti-Republican establishment views.</p>



<p>There is another little-known nuance. ; Normally, the vice chair of a committee is selected from the same party as the chairman and would assume the leadership when the chairman is not available. ; A committee leader from the opposing party is the “Minority Leader”. ; In this case, Cheney was selected by Democrat Chairman Bennie Thompson to be HIS vice chair. ; In other words, Cheney was appointed to the Committee by the Democrat leadership – and given the traditional Democrat position of vice chair.</p>



<p>Pelosi &; Co. have abused the meaning of bipartisanship – by appointing two members who were totally in line with the Democrats’ narrative … the Democrats’ objectives … and the Democrats’ strategy. ; Cheney and Kinzinger were no longer operating under the GOP flag. ; That is NOT bipartisanship. ; There can be no argument that ALL the members of the Committee were bound by a common cause.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Lie #2 …The Committee was holding hearings</strong></h2>



<p>I have personally been involved in hundreds of legislative hearings – from state houses to Congress – and the January 6<sup>th</sup> Committee was not holding anything that conformed to a traditional legislative hearing. ; Hearings involve the exploration of facts, documents, and testimony from all viewpoints to arrive at a yet undetermined truth. ; In terms of legislatures, the hearing process is to develop information leading to new laws, tax policies, and appropriations. ; The January 6<sup>th</sup> Committee had no interest in hearing all the facts – or any legislative purpose.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Lie #3 … The Committee was investigating the events of January 6</strong><strong><sup>th</sup></strong><strong>.</strong></h2>



<p>An investigation is more than a hearing. ; There can be a search for wrongdoing. ; Even then, however, there is an examination and presentation of ALL the facts – those that tend to incriminate and those that tend to exculpate. ; An investigation is conducted to discover If the subject is guilty of wrongdoing.  ; Historically legislative investigations provide opportunities for both sides to give testimony and cross-examine witnesses. ; That was not the case with the January 6<sup>th</sup> Committee. ; Even without members representing a Republican viewpoint, the January 6<sup>th</sup> Committee could have maintained some semblance of objectivity and fairness in terms of witnesses. ; But … they did not.</p>



<p>Some argue that there was an opportunity for other witnesses to appear – potentially representing an alternative viewpoint. ; The problem with that argument is that such a witness would have had to appear before a biased tribunal. ; They would not have gotten a fair hearing.</p>



<p><strong>Lie #4 … The Committee provided irrefutable evidence of criminal activity.</strong></p>



<p>The Committee did not provide any proof of criminal activity because it does not have the authority to render such judgment. ; Congress cannot only NOT determine the guilt of anyone for anything, it does not even have the power to indict – to bring a person into a court-of-law to have the case adjudicated. ; As has been said many times – but seldom appreciated – Congress is a POLITICAL body. ; It can only render a POLITICAL opinion. ; In this case, it was a partisan political opinion based on prejudgment.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Summary</strong></h2>



<p>If what the Committee carried out for all these months was not a hearing … an investigation … and did not provide legal PROOF of criminal activity, what was it doing? ; ;</p>



<p>That is very obvious. ; It was operating as a faux prosecutorial body – arguably more like an inquisition. ; Like all prosecutorial cases, there is a presumption of guilt on the part of prosecutors –but that is only an opinion. ; They then packaged the evidence and testimony not to judge the case, but to prove THEIR narrative. ; ;</p>



<p>It is the same when a prosecutor presents a case to a Grand Jury – which only hears the evidence and arguments from the point-of-view of the prosecutors. There is no opportunity for the defense to rebut in a Grand Jury hearing. That is why they say that a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. ; ;</p>



<p>That is how unfair a one-sided prosecution is. ; And is why courts-of-law have procedures and rules guaranteeing that the accused has the right to mount a full defense – to bring forth evidence to rebut the prosecutor’s case.</p>



<p>The one-sided nature of the Committee’s work makes its final report, and all its conclusions and accusations, suspect – no matter how much praise the Committee receives for its “good work” from sycophantic political allies and media.</p>



<p>Whether President Trump or others are guilty of crimes is yet to be determined – public opinion notwithstanding. ; They are entitled to a presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty in a court-of-law.  ; They most certainly deserve better than inquisition-style conviction in the court-of-public-opinion sullied by political partisanship. ; ; ;</p>



<p>I understand people who hate trump and are convinced of his guilt, but the folks that bother me are the members of the Committee … Democrat leaders … and the news people … who claim to be the defenders of the Constitution and yet are so willing to kick to the curb the most basic rights articulated in the document. ;</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Why the Work of the January 6th Committee is Not Reliable
