Thread by @RickPetree

We’ll see what the Select Committee is able to do in uncovering the leadership and funding of Jan. 6, and its GOP collaborators. It must not, however, serve as a substitute for criminal investigations of senior officials.

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1414047278348783616

Have senior military officers been called for interviews on their interactions with civilian counterparts that day ? Uniformed personnel will cooperate, if questioned directly. Their info should be productive.

The DOJ investigations of Jan. 6 are centered in the U.S Attorney’s office for D.C. and the FBI’s Washington, D.C. field office. From published DOJ statements thus far, there’s no reason to believe they are investigating senior political figures’ involvement.

That doesn’t mean they are not doing so, only that they have chosen to give no public guidance on the scope or direction of their investigations. That opacity is a disservice, I believe, but it’s a separate point.

The reports they’ve disseminated offer self-congratulatory ‘body counts’ of numbers of Capitol invaders charged for sundry offenses, numbers of public tips processed, etc. They refer to ‘perpetrators’ of Aug. 6th in ways suggesting their sole focus is actual Capitol invaders.

It is true that Garland has assured the public that DOJ will pursue evidence of Jan. 6th related crimes “wherever that evidence might lead.” An optimistic person might infer that he’s prepared to pursue senior political figures if appropriate evidence emerges.

My sense, however, is that it’s a game of ‘hot potato,’ waiting to see if someone (an Oathkeeper ?) drops something in DOJ’s lap, forcing their hand. That is quite different, obviously, than proactively searching for evidence of high level planning, coordination & encouragement.

The likelihood of such a ‘hot potato’ being lobbed by the sort of ‘perpetrators’ the DOJ appears to be focusing on is slight. The upwards evidentiary trail from such a witness would be tenuous and would take a long time to develop. We lack that time.

The DOJ should be transparent, at least, as to whether its investigations encompass possible planning, preparation and cooperation in the events of Jan. 6th by political figures.

Such an acknowledgement would not prejudice the investigation’s outcome (perhaps no crimes were committed or evidence to charge crimes is insufficient), but it would give much needed reassurance that DOJ is, in fact, investigating the full story of what happened on Jan. 6th.

“In the fullness of time,” of course, the full story *will* be known. But we need, now, an active pursuit of that story.