The Endless Narrative That January 6 Is Shrouded in Mystery

It requires a good amount of omission.

A couple weeks ago, Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley wrote a piece on recent revelations he believes undermine the conventional wisdom of what happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. He blames what he views as false perceptions, in part, on the “selective release of information” by the January 6 Committee.

As I’ve stated in the past, I think Turley’s a very smart guy and an impressive legal scholar with strong credentials. He obviously knows much more about the law than I do, so I think he’s worth listening to. But on select issues, including January 6 and the Trump impeachments, his purportedly objective analysis tends to drift outside of the legal arena, and into one marred by personal considerations and political pandering.

Approaching issues from compartmentalized perspectives is fair game, I suppose, but I don’t think Turley’s audience (which includes millions of Fox viewers) always or even usually recognizes when he’s doing it. Most view his analysis as systematic in nature, without political taint or personal aspiration, which often isn’t the case. His January 6 piece was a perfect example, as he inserted improper context and omitted key details that stood at direct odds with his stated arguments and concerns.

People who’ve been reading my work for a while know that January 6 is a sensitive topic to me. I view it as an infamous moment in U.S. history — not just some political narrative negated by fading public interest or election results. So when I see its significance cheapened, or alternative history entertained to detract from the sobering realities of what happened (especially by people who should know better), I feel inclined to weigh in.

Today, in uncharacteristically long form, I decided to take on Turley’s piece, and fill in some blanks I suspect he consciously (and in some cases creatively) left. And since I still hear from folks who occasionally want me to weigh in on specific details of January 6, and the investigations into it, today’s column can also serve as a bookmark I can direct them to.

Turley begins:

On Jan. 6, 2021, the nation was rocked by the disruption of the certification of Joe Biden as our next president. With Donald Trump set to return to the White House in 2025, it is astonishing how much of that day remains a matter of intense debate.

Just on a personal aside, I agree that it’s astonishing… but not in the way Turley means. What astonishes me is how much of that “intense debate” still relies on false narratives and cartoonish conspiracy theories. Similarly, there have been many arguments over the last couple of decades about 9/11, but we can hopefully agree that those that include nonsense about invisible planes and the melting temperature of steel aren’t part of a serious accounting of that day’s events.

Also astonishing to me is the GOP’s leadership’s evolution on the matter, beginning with almost universal condemnation of Donald Trump and his supporters shortly after the attack (in some cases while it was occurring) to — with lots of help from bad actors in the right-wing media — embarrassing accommodation and transparent scapegoating.

More on that later.

Turley continues:

January 6 remains as much a political litmus test as it is a historical event. Whether you refer to that day as a riot or an insurrection puts you on one side or the other of a giant political chasm. I viewed the attack on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process, but I did not view it as an insurrection. I still don’t.

This semantics battle has long struck me as silly. Whether the attack is called an “insurrection” or a “riot” may be important to a lot of people from a political perspective, but from a purely definitional one, it’s always been pretty straightforward. Both insurrection and riot absolutely apply to what happened that day:

They’re not mutually exclusive terms, which is why I’ve long felt at ease using either when referencing January 6. Contrary to the belief of those who’ve taken exception to me doing so, an insurrection doesn’t require pre-planning nor the use of conventional weapons. In fact, one could fairly argue that the term could easily be applied to other events that haven’t been widely identified as such.

Now, it certainly could be that Turley is speaking specifically to the legal or criminal act of an insurrection (he’s a legal scholar after all), though a plain reading of the law, despite its vagueness, strongly suggests it applies as well.

§2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that historically speaking, people in this country just aren’t charged with the crime of insurrection. It wasn’t even done during the civil war era, so it’s basically without precedent. Thus, it shouldn’t have been at all surprising that January 6 prosecutors stuck to far more conventional charges for the thousand-plus people who committed crimes that day.

It should also be noted that some participants did in fact have a grand, rather sinister plan going into that day, and were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their role. Turley made no mention of them in his piece.

Turley:

It was a protest that became a riot when a woefully insufficient security plan collapsed. And that is a view shared by most Americans. One year after the riot, a CBS poll showed that 76 percent viewed it as a “protest gone too far.”

A Harvard study also found that those arrested on that day were motivated by loyalty to Trump rather than support for an insurrection.

A recent poll found that almost half of the public (43 percent) felt that “too much is being made” of the riot and that it is “time to move on.” Of course, that still leaves a little over half who view the day as “an attack on democracy.”

First, generally speaking, I think we can all agree that how individuals who respond to a public poll prefer to identify an event is immaterial to the facts of the event itself. That said, what Turley notably left out in his reading of the CBS poll is rather telling.

Yes, 76% of those polled viewed January 6 as a “protest that went too far.” Turley uses that sentiment to bolster his belief that what happened was not an insurrection. What he omitted is that 55% (still a significant majority) of those same people said January 6 was, in fact… an “insurrection.” And 63% said the January 6 agitators were “trying to overturn the election and keep Donald Trump in power,” a belief consistent with the other poll Turley references.

Personally, I agree with all three of those majority positions: It was an insurrection, with the intent of overturning the results of an election to keep Trump in power, that began as a protest. None of those views are in conflict. Neither is the assessment, made by 54% of those who took the CBS poll, that the aggressors were “trying to overthrow the U.S. government.”

As for the Harvard study, was there ever any question as to whether those arrested for January 6 crimes were motivated by loyalty to Trump? Trump and his two months of election lies were why those people were at the Capitol in the first place. They didn’t show up to support would-be insurrectionists they had never before met.

Turley:

The continued distrust of the official accounts of Jan. 6 reflects a failure of the House Democrats, and specifically former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to guarantee a credible and comprehensive investigation.

Is it really fair to blame the Democrats? Or could that distrust exist for pretty much the same reason that roughly 70% of Republican voters, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, continue to insist Donald Trump won the 2020 election?

Let’s face it… It’s never mattered to those millions of Americans how many of Trump’s legal challenges failed in court. It’s never mattered how many Republican governors and election officials confirmed and testified to the election results being accurate. It’s never mattered how many recounts, audits, and fraud-investigations further substantiated those results. Trump faithfuls can’t accept the reality of the 2020 election because they can’t accept the premise of their guy losing. It’s always been about feelings, not facts.

Yet, we’re supposed to believe that any Democratic initiative (led by Nancy Pelosi no less) to investigate January 6 could have possibly convinced such people to push aside their preferred narrative, and accept facts that were far more politically damaging and dishonorable than that of a mere election loss? Come on.

But let’s hear Turley out:

The House Select Committee to investigate January 6 was comprised of Democrat-selected members who offered only one possible view: that January 6 was an attempt to overthrow our democracy by Trump and his supporters. The committee hired a former ABC News producer to create a slick, made-for-television production that barred opposing views and countervailing evidence. The members, including Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney, played edited videotapes of Trump’s speech that removed the portion where Trump called on his supporters to protest “peacefully.”

Since Turley chose not to explain why the committee looked as it did, I will (again)…

The original plan (which Republican leaders asked and successfully negotiated for) was a 50/50, 9/11-style, truly bipartisan January 6 commission where the two parties would pick their own members from outside of the Congress. It’s what everyone from Lindsey Graham to Kevin McCarthy to Liz Cheney to Nancy Pelosi said they wanted. But by the time it came to a House vote, McCarthy, in accordance with Trump’s wishes, turned on the effort and called on other House Republicans to do the same. While the commission nonetheless passed the House (with 35 Republican votes), Senate Republicans, again in deference to Trump, killed it.

Plan B was the first iteration of the select committee, in which Pelosi offered five of thirteen seats to the GOP (in addition to naming Republican Liz Cheney as its co-chair), amounting to roughly the same party proportions as the Republican-led Benghazi committee years earlier. Kevin McCarthy, as he initially did for the January 6 commission, agreed to the terms. But when Pelosi rejected two of his picks, Jim Jordan and Jim Banks (for being prominent participants in Trump’s “stop the steal” efforts), McCarthy, instead of simply replacing them with two other Republicans (he had a couple hundred to choose from), removed his other three picks from the committee, vowed not to appoint anyone else, and warned other Republicans not to cooperate. Once again, the GOP killed the effort.

Plan C: At that point, rather than abandon the committee entirely, Pelosi decreased its size to nine, and added Republican Adam Kinzinger (who defied McCarthy’s wishes to accept the role).

So, that’s why the committee was so politically lopsided (seven Democrats and two pro-impeachment Republicans) — because Republican leadership wanted the entire effort dead. Since I agree with Turley that January 6 was “a desecration of our constitutional process,” I believed the matter deserved an investigation broader than that of individual criminal acts committed by physical participants in the storming of the Capitol. I’m glad that investigation happened, while recognizing it was by no means perfect.

Though I would quibble with Turley’s contention that committee members’ only offered view was that “January 6 was an attempt to overthrow our democracy by Trump and his supporters,” I think it’s important to note that in the wake of that day, that basic sentiment was shared even by some of Trump’s most loyal sycophants in Washington.

Senator Ted Cruz repeatedly (at least 17 times) called January 6 a “terrorist attack,” and described it as “a shocking assault on our democratic system.”

“…there are growing signs that many of those in that mob were believers in a ridiculous conspiracy theory,” said Senator Marco Rubio, “and others were lied to — lied to by politicians who were telling them that the vice president had the power to change the election results.”

Senator Lindsey Graham said Trump “went too far,” and announced his departure from the Trump Train. He added that “when it comes to accountability, [Trump] needs to understand that his actions were the problem not the solution.”

“The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters,” said Kevin McCarthy, who bragged about standing up to Trump on the phone that day.

Top Republicans in Congress, including McCarthy, even discussed invoking the 25th Amendment and calling on Trump to resign from office. Several members of the Trump administration resigned in protest over what their boss had wrought.

In other words, in the first few days and weeks after January 6, when patriotism outshone evolving political considerations, Republican lawmakers and administration officials were largely clear-eyed and upfront about what had happened. If GOP leaders had remained committed to truth and accountability for that day, rather than resorting to a political damage-control posture, they would have taken seriously and participated in the investigation. By refusing to do so, additional areas of investigation, that would have likely come from a truly bipartisan committee, were left on the table.

Lots of partisan hay has been made over a former national-news producer, James Goldston, being hired to assist with the committee’s publicly televised presentation, but I’ve never quite understood the problem. The investigation included over a thousand interviews of witnesses (several of which were recorded) and the review of hundreds of thousands of hours of video footage of that day. It would seem prudent to enlist the help of a seasoned multi-media professional to present key parts of such material to the public. Unless Goldston was paid an exorbitant amount money (on the public dime), or doctored footage (which I don’t think anyone’s accused him of), what’s the big deal?

Turley takes particular exception with the committee not airing Trump’s use of the word “peacefully” well into his fiery January 6 speech (that lasted over an hour) at the Ellipse.

In MAGA-world, that single canned utterance (written not by Trump but his speech-writer), read by the president as portions of the large crowd were already peeling off toward the Capitol, somehow discredits even the notion that Trump provoked the violence that followed. The argument is essentially that the word (which Trump consciously avoided in the buildup to that day) not only nullified every incendiary remark Trump made in that very same speech (including 20 mostly ad-libbed instances of the word “fight”), but also every inflammatory lie he had told in the weeks beforehand (about the election being stolen, our system of democracy being destroyed, and January 6 at the Capitol being the last opportunity to save the country from ruin).

Again, what was said in the previous two months (not just that day) was why thousands of angry Trump supporters ended up at the Capitol. The idea that eight weeks of provocation are rendered meaninglessness the moment the word “peaceful” is casually tossed out in the eleventh hour is absurd. But that appears to be Turley’s position.

Turley:

The committee fostered false accounts, including the claim that there was a violent episode with Trump trying to wrestle control of the presidential limousine. The Committee knew that the key Secret Service driver directly contradicted that account offered by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.

It’s important to recognize that Cassidy Hutchinson made very clear (as did Liz Cheney) at the time that she wasn’t offering a firsthand account of what happened in the limo. She was testifying to what she had been told by someone else had happened. For that reason alone, Cheney should have never asked Hutchinson about the topic —at least not at the public hearing. Doing so was a bad move (not the only one the committee made), especially if there was firsthand testimony contradicting what Hutchinson had heard. It not only provided the committee’s detractors with an opening to dismiss Hutchinson’s testimony entirely (despite the rest of it coming from a firsthand perspective), but lent disproportionate attention to a detail that — even if true — didn’t seem particularly relevant to the scope of the investigation.

Turley:

While the Democrats insisted that Trump’s speech constituted criminal incitement, he was never charged with that crime — not even by the motivated prosecutors who pledged to pursue such charges. The reason is that Trump’s speech was entirely protected under the First Amendment. Such a charge of criminal incitement would have quickly collapsed in court.

I’m not sure which Democrats insisted Trump’s speech alone was criminal incitement, but if there were some, I agree with Turley that they were wrong.

Turley:

Nevertheless, the Washington Post, NPR, other media and the committee members called Jan. 6 an “insurrection” engineered by Trump. Figures such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) insisted the committee had evidence that Trump organized a “coup” on Jan. 6, 2021. That evidence never materialized.

Again, by pure definition, it was an insurrection. The term “engineered” is subjective (“provoked” is better), but I agree that Raskin got out over his skis on specifically calling January 6 a Trump-organized coup.

Turley:

The lack of adequate security measures that day has long puzzled many of us. After all, there had been a violent riot at the White House before January 6, in which more officers were injured and Trump had to be moved to a secure location. The National Guard had to be called out to protect the White House, but those same measures (including a fence) were not ordered at the Capitol.

I think security failures on January 6 is an important topic. I wish the committee had spent more time on it. That said, I saw the situation as similar to how a police investigator would focus much more closely on the act of a violent home invasion than the security inadequacies of the victim’s invaded home. Both would be part of the police case, of course, but the priorities and prominent blame would seem rather obvious.

But let’s get to specifics. Turley writes:

Two of the recent reports offered new details related to those questions.

One report confirmed that Trump did, in fact, offer the deployment of the National Guard in anticipation of the protest. The Jan. 6 Committee repeatedly dismissed this claim. After all, it would be a rather curious attempt at an insurrection if Trump was suggesting the use of thousands of troops to prevent any breach of Congress. The committee specifically found “no evidence” that the Trump administration called for 10,000 National Guard members to be sent to Washington, D.C., to protect the Capitol. The Washington Post even supposedly “debunked” Trump’s comments with an award of “Four Pinocchios.”

Yet evidence now shows that Trump personally suggested the deployment of 10,000 National Guard troops to prevent violence. For example, a transcript includes the testimony of former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato in January 2022 with Liz Cheney present. Ornato states that he clearly recalled Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops.

Turley unfortunately left out lots of important context in his summary that nullifies his entire argument. Part of the problem is that the “report” he cites is a highly flawed piece by The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway, a Trump loyalist who isn’t exactly known for her journalistic integrity.

What Ornato “clearly recalled” hearing was one side of a phone conversation between White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, in which Meadows asked Bowser if she could use additional troops to protect anticipated pro-Trump protesters from counter-protestors at the planned speech at the Ellipse. The conversation, which didn’t include Trump, had nothing to do with the U.S. Capitol. Ornato even testified under oath that he wasn’t aware of any order by Trump to deploy the National Guard on January 6. Others in the Trump administration testified that, in fact, no such order was given.

Turley:

Videotapes have also emerged showing Pelosi privately admitting that she and Democratic leadership were responsible for the security failure on Jan. 6.

The video he’s referring to, which has received lots of purchase in MAGA circles, is documentary footage filmed by Pelosi’s daughter, Alexandra. In the clip, Pelosi laments (as she’s being moved from the Capitol to escape the violence) that she didn’t press Capitol law enforcement harder about their security preparations.

“Why weren't the National Guard there to begin with?" Pelosi says in the video. "They clearly didn't know, and I take responsibility for not having them just prepared for more.”

Whether Pelosi felt, in the heat of the moment, that she could have possibly done more to protect the Capitol that day, the fact of the matter is that the Speaker of the House (which she was at the time) doesn’t control Capitol security, and doesn’t have the authority to deploy the National Guard. Turley fails to mention this, and presents Pelosi’s statement (which resembles a helpless parent’s internalization of a tragedy incurred by their child) as a literal admission of liability.

Turley:

Another new report from Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who chairs the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, shows that it was the Defense Department that delayed the eventual deployment of National Guard in the critical hours of the riot.

There was indeed significant miscommunication between top military officials that day, as Turley further touches on (and the New York Times reported extensively on back in May). The result was a highly unfortunate delay that, according to sworn testimony, would have been much shorter had President Trump made the call to activate National Guard troops (which he again didn’t do).

The oversight committee Turley refers to hasn’t produced anything that discounts the findings of the January 6 committee, but such discoveries have added additional information to the public record on the events of that day. In my view, that’s a good thing.

Turley wraps up his piece with the death of rioter Ashli Babbitt, and new information describing past “disciplinary and training issues” with Lieutenant Michael Byrd. Byrd was the veteran police officer who shot Babbitt as she was breaking through an interior window (amidst repeated warnings for her to stop) to force herself inside the Speaker’s Lobby (mere feet from lawmakers).

Turley writes:

The new report confirms that Byrd had prior disciplinary and training issues, including “a failed shotgun qualification test, a failed FBI background check for a weapon’s purchase, a 33-day suspension for a lost weapon and referral to Maryland state prosecutors for firing his gun at a stolen car fleeing his neighborhood.” In one incident, detailed in a letter from Loudermilk, Byrd was suspected of lying about the circumstances under which he shot at the fleeing car.

Troubling stuff for sure, though, as Turley points out, Byrd was cleared of any wrongdoing on January 6 by Capitol Police and the Department of Justice. It’s a decision Turley disagrees with:

Byrd stated “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” In other words, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon. He took Babbitt’s effort to crawl through the window as sufficient justification to kill her. It was not. And it is worth noting that Byrd could just as well have hit the officers standing just behind Babbitt.

It may not have been justification enough for Turley, who wasn’t in the Capitol that day and forced into the horrific position of having to protect lawmakers from a quickly advancing mob (that Ted Cruz considered terrorists). But as with the famous Ferguson police-shooting of Michael Brown (who was also unarmed), multiple law-enforcement agencies including the DOJ determined that the police officer acted appropriately.

On a side note, Babbitt, who Turley correctly states was committing multiple criminal acts when she was shot, was found to have a 'Para Force' knife in her possession. Whether she was prepared to use it upon reaching the lawmakers she came within just a few feet of, no one knows.

Frankly, it strikes me as a miracle and example of extraordinary restraint that more rioters weren’t shot that day by the police, especially considering how many officers were beaten by them (some severely).

So, there you have it. I think, once you weed out the political talking points and focus on the facts, very little of the public record on January 6 has been called into question by recent revelations. Supplemental information has certainly been gathered, and — again — I think that’s a good thing, but Turley’s condemnation of the “selective release of information” is awfully rich after the piece he wrote.