The Daily - The Saga of Congress’s Jan. 6 Investigation

Episode Date: July 28, 2021

This episode contains strong language.The first hearing of the special congressional committee on the Jan. 6 riots was an emotional affair, but it was not quite the investigation that was originally envisaged.In January, lawmakers on both sides spoke of putting aside partisanship and organizing an investigation akin to the 9/11 commission, considered the gold standard of nonpartisan fact-finding.Why did the commission fail and what is taking place instead?Guest: Luke Broadwater, a congressional reporter for The New York Times. Sign up here to get The Daily in your inbox each morning. And for an exclusive look at how the biggest stories on our show come together, subscribe to our newsletter. Background reading: “A hit man sent them.” Police officers at the Capitol recounted the horrors of Jan. 6 on the first day of the House committee investigation into the event.In remarks before the hearing, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, said Republicans wanted the focus of the inquiry to be on the lack of preparation for the violence and ways to prevent future attacks.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. 

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. On Tuesday, a special congressional committee began investigating the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. Today, my colleague Luke Broadwater on why it's not the kind of investigation that anybody had originally wanted. It's Wednesday, July 28th.

Luke, you were at this hearing on Tuesday morning on Capitol Hill. Can you describe the scene? Yes. The hearing got underway around 9.30 a.m. The Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol will be in order. I would say it immediately became both a somber and emotional affair. Four police officers who had defended the Capitol against a vicious attack entered the room wearing their dark blue uniforms. And they sat down one by one. They were greeted by the lawmakers of the committee.

And one of the first things that happened in the committee room was members of the committee played a very graphic video of the violence that the officers endured that day. At least it's common we can defend. We gotta hold what we have. Can I speak to Pelosi? We're coming, bitch. Oh, my bitch, we're coming for you too.

10-33. I repeat, 10-33. Who's from the Capitol? They've got the gallows set upside this Capitol building. It's time to start fucking using them. I saw one of the officers tear up during it. It's time to start fucking using them. I saw one of the officers tear up during it.

Another reached over to a fellow cop he had served with that day and put his arm around him. And they began to tell their stories, their very personal stories, about what they endured that day. A chaotic melee ensued. Terrorists pushed through the line and engaged us in hand-to-hand combat. One officer described how rioters attempted to gouge his eye out. Several attempted to knock me over and steal my baton. One latched onto my face and got his thumb in my right eye, attempting to gouge it out. I cried out in pain and managed to shake him off. And they called him a traitor as they sought to invade the Capitol. Another woman who was part of the mob of terrorists laying siege to the Capitol of the United States shouted traitors. Another. What we were suggested that they was like something

from a medieval battle. Said the day was akin to a medieval battle. As I was swarmed by a violent mob, they began to beat me with their fists and with what felt like hard metal objects. A third described being beaten unconscious and struck repeatedly with a taser. I heard chanting from some in the crowd, get his gun and kill him with his own gun. I was electrocuted again and again and again with a taser. And he pleaded with his assailants, telling them,

I have kids. heel to any humanity they might have. I said as loud as I could manage, I've got kids. And a fourth officer relayed how he was called racist slurs over and over again. Then the crowd, perhaps around 20 people, joined in screaming, boo, fucking nigger. No one had ever, ever called me a nigger while wearing the uniform of a Capitol Police officer. To the point where he broke down and cried in the storied rotunda of the Capitol after the horrors of that day were over. I sat down on the bench in the rotunda with a friend of mine

who was also a Black Capitol Police officer and told him about the racial slurs I endured, I became very emotional and began yelling, how the blank could something like this happen? Is this America? I began sobbing. Officers came over to console me. So these were four officers who had really compelling personal stories of confronting the mob. who had really compelling personal stories of confronting the mob. And as the hearing went on... Chair recognizes a gentleman from Illinois.

The lawmakers themselves on the committee also were reacting emotionally. I never expected a day to be quite as emotional for me as it has been. I saw Adam Kinzinger, a Republican on the committee, break down in tears as he thanked the officers for their heroism.

You guys may like individually feel a little broken. You know, you talk about the impact of that day. But you guys won. And we thank you for holding that line. And I saw Stephanie Murphy, a Democrat from Florida, also become emotional as she listened to the officer's testimony. You know, I have two

young children. I have a 10-year-old son and a 7-year-old daughter. And they're the light of my life. And the reason I was able to hug them again was because of the courage that you and your fellow officers showed that day. And so just a really heartfelt thank you. And if you didn't know any better, you would just have watched this committee and thought this was a traditional bipartisan committee trying to get to the facts about what happened during a tragic attack on the nation's capital. But as this very somber, fact-finding description of the violence of January 6th is going on inside this hearing room, outside is a completely different reality. This committee is completely partisan from top to bottom.

There is a reason that Nancy Pelosi is the most disliked elected official in America. She doesn't want the American people to know the truth or learn the facts. Speaker Pelosi wants her narrative and her outcome to prevail and not the truth. She doesn't want a fair or bipartisan investigation. She wants a political one. That becomes a failed committee and a failed report, a sham that no one can believe. The Republican leadership of the House of Representatives was just an hour before the hearing began, condemning the panel that was hearing it as a partisan exercise and a sham. So, Luke, how did we get to this point

where a congressional committee devoted to trying to understand what happened on January 6th and who is responsible for it devolved into this bizarre split-screen universe. Well, shortly after the attack, there was widespread agreement that it should be investigated. Kevin McCarthy, the leader of the Republicans in the House, said that President Trump bore responsibility for the violence. The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. And that there should be a fact-finding commission to investigate it.

January 6th was a disgrace. Leader McConnell, the leader of the Senate Republicans, said that President Trump was not off the hook. President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office. Didn't get away with anything yet. And one by one, you heard Republicans talking along these lines. Lindsey Graham said he never wanted to talk with Trump again or deal with him. There was sort of this widespread belief that they were going to act in a different way than they had in the past, and this was going to change things. And they were really going to investigate how Trump radicalized

a portion of the base to make them want to storm the Capitol and overturn the election. Right. And I think the question back then was, how would this bipartisan consensus and this outrage over January 6th, how would it be channeled into some kind of investigative process that matched the scale of what had happened? That's correct. The first thing Democrats wanted to do was impeach the president. about a week after the attack on the Capitol, that Democrats quickly pursued a second impeachment of former President Trump to hold him accountable under the charge of inciting an insurrection. But the feeling at the time among most Republicans was that impeaching the president a second time was not a step that they wanted to take. But they did want to get to the bottom of January 6th.

There were still a lot of raw feelings about it. There was a sense that the democratic process had been completely disrupted in a way that was unacceptable. And the proposal that they had was to have a 9-11-style commission. And what does that mean, a 11 style commission well the 9 11 commission was the gold standard of how to carry out a bipartisan or even non-partisan investigation it was an independent commission where democrats and republicans got to appoint an even number of people to the panel.

And they were not current lawmakers who were trying to win re-election or needed to be popular with the voters. They were, for the most part, some heavy hitters who had been former senators or governors or people involved in the Watergate investigation, who would now come either out of retirement or step aside to devote themselves to this sort of neutral and patriotic cause. I remember one of the first meetings they had, the members of the committee were sitting as Republicans on one side, Democrats on the other, and they were told not to do that. They were supposed to sit next to each other, supposed to not treat each other by political party, and it was supposed to be completely bipartisan or even nonpartisan. They spent the better part of two years investigating what went wrong. They had testimony from everybody up to the president himself and the vice president.

And at the end of their investigation, they put together a really authoritative report that actually became a bestselling book. I remember reading it not long after I graduated from college. And for the first time, I think I really understood what had motivated Al-Qaeda and the security breakdowns that had happened and how that really hampered the United States in keeping the people safe. And so those were things that I think a lot of the public learned from that report. And I would say the most important thing was to establish a shared set of facts, that the entire country, whether you're a Republican or Democrat, here was a report

that everyone could agree upon. It was not one side or the other telling you what happened. It was the definitive document about how 9-11 happened, who was to blame, and how we can fix things. So that is the model that both sides are saying they're ready to embrace when it comes to investigating January 6th. So what happens to that proposal? Well, in May, Republicans have a decision to make, whether they're going to go ahead and continue with what they've said they want, which is a bipartisan investigation into the January 6th attack,

or are they going to listen to former President Trump, who's been telling everybody that will listen that nothing major happened that day, that the police officers were actually embraced by a beautiful crowd of peaceful supporters? And come May, both Kevin McCarthy, who is the leader of the House Republicans, and Senator Mitch McConnell, who leads the Senate Republicans, decide they're going to oppose the commission. And what's your understanding of why? Well, it's a completely political calculation. If you talk to Republicans, Well, it's a completely political calculation. If you talk to Republicans, they believe that 2022 is their year to win back the House. And if you talk to them privately, they'll tell you that they know January 6th is a reminder of the extremism of some of the Republican Party, its lockstep loyalty to Donald Trump,

how that led to a very dark day in American history, an embarrassment for their party and for the country. And they don't want to talk about it anymore. Right. So the House, which has the votes to do this just with the Democrats, votes to pass a September 11th-style commission. But by the time it gets to the Senate, it needs 10 Republicans to support it because of the Senate's filibuster rule. And... After careful consideration, I've made the decision to oppose the House Democrats' slanted and unbalanced proposal for another commission to study the events of January the 6th. Senator Mitch McConnell decides to use his first filibuster of Joe Biden's presidency against the January 6th commission. And I'll continue to urge my colleagues to oppose this extraneous layer when the time comes for the Senate to vote.

And he asks, he implores, and some telling his colleagues to join him against what might be some of their inclinations to oppose the commission. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 35. The motion is not agreed to. And so the measure fails in the Senate. Right.

And with it, any possibility of an independent commission exploring January 6th the way an independent commission explored September 11th. That's exactly right. We'll be right back. So Luke, with the best model out there, this gold standard investigation and independent commission no longer possible, what options are left? What happens? Well, there were a few options. President Biden could have appointed a commission. There was a presidential commission that investigated the option that Speaker Nancy Pelosi settled on was to appoint a select committee, which can be given a specific task to do with a specific focus. So she went ahead and drafted a proposal to have a select committee which would have eight of her appointees and five nominees from the Republicans. So bipartisan in theory. Yes. So she starts off with her eight appointees.

And then Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader, nominates his five individuals. Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader, nominates his five individuals. That's when a monkey wrench gets thrown into the proceedings. Among the five Republicans that Kevin McCarthy offered up were two that Democrats, the rank and file Democrats, found completely unacceptable. And they start inundating Speaker Pelosi with calls to object to their inclusion. And who are those two Republicans? The first is Congressman Jim Jordan. My hunch is the reason we didn't have the backup there for those good Capitol Hill police officers is because what happened in the summer of 2020, Laura, Democrats normalized anarchy. Who Democrats objected to in part because he met with Donald Trump in December

and helped plan the objections to the election on January 6th. They said he was a potential witness that the committee could call and therefore could not serve on the committee. That's right. The other was Congressman Jim Banks. The more you ask these questions and unravel the facts about January 6th, the more you get into a line of questions

that go up a chain of command that end up on Speaker Pelosi's desk. What we know is that the Capitol... Who Democrats said disqualified himself, in their view, by objecting to the election, the certification of Joe Biden's victory, opposing the creation of the commission, and then on the day he was nominated, releasing a fiery statement, in their view, undermining the committee's work and the committee's purpose. They have made statements and taken actions that I think would impact the integrity of

the committee. And so Speaker Pelosi says, no, neither Banks nor Jordan can serve on this committee. It is my responsibility as Speaker of the House to make sure we get to the truth on this and we will not let their antics stand in the way. But even if you accept the Democrats' critiques

for a moment, that these two House Republicans cannot possibly be objective about January 6th because of their conduct, because of their statements, they are still members of Congress, right? And they were chosen by their leader. So can Pelosi just block them from this committee like that? Well, she can. It turns out, it was sort of in the fine print of the bill, Well, she can. It turns out it was sort of in the fine print of the bill that Speaker Pelosi had veto power over Leader McCarthy's choices. And so while he could nominate, she had to concur.

And he says that this shows, in his view, that Speaker Pelosi was only interested in a partisan game and not interested in really getting to the facts. And so when she nixed two of his nominees, he decided to pull all five of his from the committee, leaving the committee with not a single nominee from the Republican leader. nominee from the Republican leader. And so, Luke, who's ultimately left on this committee that Speaker Pelosi had said at the outset was meant to be bipartisan? So Speaker Pelosi did something interesting when she appointed her eight members. She appointed seven Democrats, but she also appointed one Republican herself. She nominated Liz Cheney, the former third-ranking Republican of the House, whose constant criticism and scrutiny of Donald Trump and his actions caused her to be ousted from House Republican leadership. Right.

Now Nancy Pelosi has a choice to make. Now she has five empty slots in the committee. And so she looks around and thinks, who else can I appoint to make this more bipartisan? And there's only one other Republican who voted to create the select committee. And that is Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, a six-term congressman, a former Air Force veteran who has emerged as another forceful critic of Donald Trump and a person who has urged his party to move in a different direction than marching in lockstep with the former president. Basically, Pelosi looks around the entire House Republican caucus and can only find two members that are acceptable to her members and who are actually willing, it seems, to serve on this select committee investigating January 6th.

Right. investigating the causes and failures of the January 6th riot at the Capitol that the vast majority of congressional Republicans don't support and are now denouncing, right? And that is constituted almost entirely by Democrats and by the way is four members short of its original plan. And so it feels like all of this drama you're describing reveals just how much this January 6th investigative process probably really needed to be in the hands of an independent 9-11 style commission rather than in the hands of sitting lawmakers with their very partisan instincts. and instincts. Absolutely. This has devolved into the exact scenario that many people from, frankly, both sides of the aisle were worried about. So given this very weird, less than ideal committee makeup, what is this committee actually going to try to do to reveal the information they're after? And what kind of power do we expect them to actually have well they have subpoena power and they're going to follow two key lines of inquiry the first

are security breakdowns that occurred that day the other is why did the attackers do what they did is why did the attackers do what they did? Who helped organize the rally? Who motivated them? Who incited them? So all of those questions go into a second line of inquiry that is likely to result in subpoenas for documents and for testimony. And when we say subpoenas,

do we know yet who this committee may try to subpoena? We don't yet, but we do know some likely suspects. President Trump, his inner circle, and anyone who talked to him that day and the buildup to that day. We know that Leader McCarthy had an angry phone call with President Trump that day. I'm sure the committee will be interested in that. We know that several senators were on the phone with President Trump that day. They may be called to testify. There have been accusations that certain sitting members of Congress helped plan the rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol. They may well be on a witness list.

So we don't know exactly who will be called yet, but we do know the committee is fully empowered to seek answers and they have the power of law behind them now. And so is it possible that this committee will hear from former President Trump? It's a distinct possibility that they will subpoena former President Trump. Whether or not he complies is another question. But the reason they want to hear from former President Trump is they want to know about his mindset, who he talked with, what decisions he made, and why he didn't call off the attack much earlier. So they have serious questions for him, and they want to hear serious answers.

Luke, based on what you saw on day one of this committee's work, do you think it has any real chance of succeeding in its mission of trying to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6th? Based on what I saw today, this committee is approaching its work in a serious fashion. They had revelatory testimony today that did get to the heart of the trauma and violence of January 6th. And they did it in a sober way where they were not distracted by partisan antics and partisan politics. That said, when you look back at how the 9-11 Commission did its work with an independent body, that commission had the mandate to be trusted by both parties, by Americans of all stripes. in the most serious, sober, fair-minded, fact-finding way runs the risk of always being seen

by half the country as a partisan exercise. And I'm not sure how you change that. It's interesting. Even though Republican leaders, Luke, are rejecting this committee, maybe this committee ultimately is exactly what those Republican leaders wanted. A committee that might produce new facts, might unearth really important information, but can then be dismissed as partisan.

Yeah, I guess if you're looking at this through a purely partisan lens and with 2022 on your mind and your greatest concern is that new facts may be uncovered that make your party look bad, then that would be a form of success. I'm just not sure it's the definition of success that most nonpolitical Americans would agree to. So I'm not sure it's the definition of success for the people who were in the Capitol that day, the lawmakers who fled for their lives, and the officers who suffered so greatly at the hands of the mob. Well, Luke, thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Thank you for having me.

We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. On Tuesday, federal health officials issued new guidelines on masks that reflect their growing fears over the Delta variant of the coronavirus. The officials said that in areas of the country where infections are surging, even people vaccinated against COVID-19 should resume wearing masks in indoor public spaces. And with the school year approaching, the officials urged all teachers, staff, and students to wear masks regardless of vaccine status or location. I just want to indicate that this is not a decision that we or CDC have made lightly.

This weighs heavily on me. I know it. During a news conference, the head of the CDC, Rochelle Walensky, said that the guidance was motivated by new evidence that in rare cases, even vaccinated people can become infected by the Delta variant, may carry large amounts of the virus, and can spread it. This new science is worrisome and unfortunately warrants an update to our recommendations. Meanwhile, in a related policy shift,

President Biden is considering requiring that all federal workers be vaccinated or submit to regular COVID-19 testing, something that Biden had previously said that he opposed. Today's episode was produced by Austin Mitchell, Sydney Harper, and Daniel Guimet. It was edited by Paige Cowett and engineered by Chris Wood. That's it for The Daily.

I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.