We are now substantially through the first phase of the committee’s thorough investigation. The committee has received thousands of documents
and interviewed more than 300
We know more about the terrible events leading up to January 6, including the January 5 “war room
” at the Willard Hotel, where Trump loyalists like Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani planned
to overturn the legitimate election outcome. We know more about the Trump campaign’s extensive outreach
to state representatives asking them to appoint
phony slates of “alternate” electors. We know that, on January 6, the defeated president and his team watched
the violence and chaos at the Capitol for more than three hours, fielding desperate requests for help, without former President Donald Trump speaking out.
When witnesses have refused to cooperate in that first fact-gathering phase, Congress has pushed back hard, referring Bannon
and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows
to the Department of Justice for their flagrantly contemptuous refusal to cooperate. After surrendering on contempt charges, Bannon likened
the charges to a witch hunt; Meadows, on the other hand, has claimed that executive privilege shields him from testifying. And when Trump interposed a meritless executive privilege argument
in an attempt to hide his administration’s records, the committee litigated fiercely and quickly — winning
at the district court and appellate levels in just three months, and now asking for an expedited decision
at the Supreme Court.
As the committee’s investigation moves into its next major chapter, those Trump administration documents will be needed for hearings, which we can logically expect to begin as soon as the first quarter of this year if a report is to be issued by summer. The hearings will be critically important for sharpening the committee’s own investigation, and for focusing the country’s attention on the truth. We’ve seen that many times before — from Watergate hearings
, to Iran-Contra
, to the first Trump impeachment.
Then will come the third phase: the reports. The interim report is planned
to follow early this summer, with a final one to follow later. The committee’s timing reflects the reality that the closer we get to the November midterms, the more politicized will be the perception of their every act. The bipartisanship of the committee’s operations is critical for the legitimacy of their work, and they likely recognize that issuing a report before the kickoff of the fall campaign season will continue that record.
Above all, we need to know more about why Trump failed to quell the insurrection for so long after the Capitol was breached. The report’s fact-finding on that and many other issues will be critical to helping the American people understand the truth about January 6 and to help leaders at all levels of government take action to prevent another insurrection. While just over a majority of Republicans in a recent CBS poll
said that the criminal invasion of the Capitol was appropriately characterized as “defending freedom,” there is an opening for the truth: According to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll
, 62% of Americans, and even 29% of Republicans, believe the investigation is appropriate. Bipartisan leaders in Congress, and the state and local officials who oversee our elections, have been fighting the “Big Lie” for more than a year. They are demanding action from all levels of government, and timely interim truth-telling can help.
But the committee must not stop there. Once it finds the facts, it should consider their significance in light of the law. Part of that is looking forward and recommending new legislation to prevent anything like January 6 from ever occurring again. And the other equally important part is looking back and making criminal referrals to federal and state prosecutors if the evidence supports it.
There’s a long
history of such referrals. The committee’s interim report should detail all potential violations and ask prosecutors to investigate. After all, the potential for prosecution is also an important part of accountability.
We disagree with people who — in the name of the appearance of nonpartisanship — urge Congress to stay away from criminal referrals. Congress was one of the victims of the January 6 attack, and like any victim it has the prerogative — and, here, the responsibility — to tell law enforcement what happened.
There’s plenty of reason to believe that plotters against our democracy may have violated federal law. Among other applicable provisions, Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney, a Wyoming Republican, has pointed
to 18 USC 1512, which prohibits
conspiracies to “corruptly… obstruct” official proceedings. And a (Trump-appointed) federal judge has already held
that Congress’ January 6 electoral votes count was indeed an official proceeding under the statute.
Local and state prosecutors also may be looking to the January 6 report for insight into the plotters’ various efforts to disrupt and steal elections. Fani Willis, the district attorney in Georgia’s Fulton County, has announced an investigation
into Trump’s alleged attempt to interfere with the election in Georgia — including his call asking Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to just “find 11,780 votes” that did not exist to swing the state. The committee’s investigation may well provide Willis with more information on Trump and his associates — and, in fact, we know that Fulton prosecutors are already communicating
with committee staff. Trump denies all wrongdoing.
Nor is Georgia necessarily the only state where Trump and his allies sought to improperly influence election officials and obstruct vote-counting. For instance: In November of 2020, Trump summoned
Michigan legislators to the White House in an attempt to convince them to override Biden’s approximately 154,000 vote win
in the state. The committee may have evidence about that remarkably brazen overreach — or evidence of soliciting election fraud in other states.
Once the interim report is out, any referrals will be in the hands of federal, state and local prosecutors. A referral isn’t a command, of course — prosecutors must still conduct independent investigations and make their own determinations about whether to prosecute. For careful prosecutors, like US Attorney General Merrick Garland, that independent investigation takes time, which is why referrals should be made sooner rather than later.
We understand the impatience with Garland in some quarters, but his deliberate approach makes sense. He has lowered the political temperature at the Justice Department and restored order. He is investigating hot-button issues with care — letting the committee do its work, and then picking up the threads and following where they lead. We are confident that he will take any referrals seriously, and we think his handling of the Bannon case proves it. Bannon was indicted
for contempt of Congress in November.
One year out from January 6, we are finally approaching clarity about what Trump and his allies were willing to do to steal an election. But we need more information and more accountability. The interim report can’t come soon enough.