Opinion: On July 21st, the 1/6 Hearings Ended the Same Way They Started

The Veracity Report

That is, with a torrent of sensational innuendo, a flourish of personally biased hyperbole, and the evocation of more questions about what happened at the Capitol that day than it answered

Image Courtesy of CSPAN

Editor-in-Chief's Note to our readers:

This non-satirical, fully attributed, and unbiased article was compiled by the accredited and degreed veteran investigative reporter Kurt Dillon and is comprised of information compiled from the following sources: The United States Capitol Police, The United States Department of Defense - Office of the Inspector general, The United States Secret Service, and Transcripts of Hearings of The House Select Committee to Investigate the Events of January 6, 2021.

The headline of this article is labelled as OPINION, strictly because we make the assertion that the process of these hearings is inherently biased, and we fervently stand by that assertion. Nevertheless, the facts that we present herein and the documentary evidence we present in support of those assertions are 100% authentic.

Whether you ultimately decide to adopt our position on this extremely important matter or not, is entirely up to you. As always, we here at The Veracity Report will never try to convince you or tell you what or who you should believe.

However, even though we make it a point to keep our personal and professional opinions out of our reporting whenever possible, our editorial staff have been so moved by the false pretenses expressed throughout these hearings, that we felt we had to literally express the factual inconsistencies of the "testimony" and "evidence" offered throughout the Hollywood-like production of these hearings.

We hope only that the facts expressed herein will help you to formulate your own educated and informed opinions regarding this investigation.

Image Courtesy of CSPAN

Of paramount concern to all but the most ardently bloodthirsty, Trump-hating liberals is the question: If it was the goal of President Donald Trump to incite violence as his detractors suggest, then why did he order the Pentagon to have a large military force ready to quell any overly rowdy contingencies?

Even more disturbing to most unbiased Americans is why the Democrat-led Congress turned down the assistance of trained and ready National Guard troops in the face of intelligence warnings about possible violence?

By their own admission, Congressional Democrats set up the hearings to evade such scrutiny. They openly and publicly declared that any questions regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s knowledge and involvement in decision making that day, and in the days leading up to January 6th, 2021, or about any potential for Jan. 6 violence—as well as when she knew, were strictly off limits.

Secret Service agents were never allowed to publicly testify as to what they personally saw and heard regarding the statements former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson made about the former President trying to force his limousine to go to the Capitol, despite their adamant, repeated, and very publicly decried desire to do so.

Even more disturbing, questions about how those in charge of Capitol security responded to FBI and Homeland Security pre-event warnings about potential violence were never asked, much less answered.

Instead, the Jan. 6 committee put on hearsay testimony from Hutchinson and released partial transcripts or video snippets of testimony without allowing Republicans or Trump's own lawyers to cross-examine witnesses or challenge the narrative offered to the American public.

Fact-less proponents of the hearsay hearings desperately try to maintain that Republicans were given the opportunity to be represented on the panel, as well as to participate and call witnesses. They quickly add that Senator McCarthy voluntarily withdrew all Republican participation from the process of his own volition. Of course, this leaves out the fact that 2 of his original five selections were summarily vetoed by House Speaker Pelosi because she did not like their insistence on subpoenaing her to testify under oath during the proceedings.

It was only after the Speaker struck Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Jim Banks (R-IA) from participating on the committee, and thereby conclusively demonstrating that the hearings were never going to be a true exercise in fact-finding, that McCarthy withdrew all Republican involvement.

The fact that Pelosi then named Reps Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kitzinger (R-Ill) to the committee (two Trump-hating Republicans who both voted to impeach the former President) to promote the appearance of bi-partisan cooperation makes for great television, but only further proves that no semblance of neutrality exists within the committee whatsoever.

In the words of Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat who voted for Joe Biden in 2020, "It's the first time this has happened in my lifetime since McCarthyism, and it's despicable. The idea that they would interview this witness and allow her to testify to hearsay about the president jumping toward the wheel, without first asking the eye- and ear- witnesses. I've never heard of a lawyer doing that in my 16 years of practicing law. ... It's not only unethical and unfair, it's bad lawyering.”

Dershowitz went on to say the committee, made up of Democrats and two anti-Trump Republicans — Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger — created a clear perception with their performance of being "partisan zealots" rather than truth-seekers.

Former career federal prosecutor David Sullivan said Thursday that the entire Jan. 6 accountability process — both at the Justice Department and the congressional hearings — raised questions of fairness and gave viewers a reason to tune out what proved to be "very scripted" interrogations. He said Democrats likely would have gained more credibility and traction if they had let Republicans offer contrary evidence and engaged in true cross-examination.

"Legal scholars are very troubled by the way these hearings are being conducted," Sullivan said. "There is no due process. For people who don’t have an agenda to promote, these [hearings] are Stalinist. And I hate using that term."

Throughout the summer, Democrats have argued that Trump intended and eventually succeeded in inciting the violence on Jan. 6. "The select committee has found evidence about a lot more than incitement here, and we're gonna be laying out the evidence about all of the actors who were pivotal to what took place on Jan. 6," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said at outset of the hearings.

But the hearings have been undercut by a fundamental fact: Trump's actions before the riot began included urging supporters to "peacefully and patriotically" express their opinions and ordering his top aides to ensure there was a large contingent of National Guard troops at the ready to ensure no trouble ensued, and the Committee has not even bothered trying to counter those facts, only to suppress and ignore them.

The Veracity Report has obtained the official Capitol Police timeline which shows the Trump Pentagon first offered National Guard troops to the Capitol Police on Jan. 2, 2021, four full days before the event.

They turned down that offer, but quickly began to second guess the decision. The Capitol Police then asked the House sergeant at arms for permission to accept the troops on Jan. 4 but were turned down on the ground that such a show of force would create bad "optics," according to the official record.

Here is the official timeline of events as presented by the United States Capitol Police


While this timeline alone is enough to guarantee no criminal charges could ever be brought against the former president for inciting the protestors that day, that timeline isn’t the most exculpatory evidence the January 6th committee had in its possession, yet failed to introduce at the hearings.

Once again, The Veracity Report obtained perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence that Trump wanted to thwart — rather than incite —violence on that day. That evidence is contained in a lengthy memo written by the Pentagon inspector general that chronicled the assistance the Defense Department offered to Congress both ahead of and during the riot.

In it, the IG recounts a fateful meeting on Jan. 3, 2021 in the White House when then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with Trump on national security matters.

The complete passage — hardly mentioned by Democrats at the hearings or the news media covering them — is worth absorbing in its entirety.

"Mr. Miller and GEN Milley met with the President at the White House at 5:30 p.m.," the IG reported. "The primary topic they discussed was unrelated to the scheduled rally. GEN Milley told us that at the end of the meeting, the President told Mr. Miller that there would be a large number of protestors on January 6, 2021, and Mr. Miller should ensure sufficient National Guard or Soldiers would be there to make sure it was a safe event. Gen Milley told us that Mr. Miller responded, 'We've got a plan and we've got it covered.'"

You can read that memo here:

DODIG-2022-039 V2 508.pdf

In advance of the Jan. 6 rally, the president told the most senior civilian and uniformed leaders of the military that he knew the event was going to draw a "large number of protestors," and he instructed the secretary of defense to ensure it was "safe" by having troops available. Democrats have not offered any evidence to counter that story.

The Pentagon memo also yields insight into the mindset of the Democrat-led Congress, top military officials and the local police before Jan. 6. Key players, it reveals, repeatedly raised concerns about accepting the offer of National Guard help, fearing it would create the perception of a military coup or martial law as the election results were certified.

Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy told the IG "He did not want to create the perception that the military was involved in the electoral process," according to the memo. "He said that Mr. Miller made it clear that the military would not be involved in certifying the election results and that 10 different news agencies asked him about military use and martial law."

District of Columbia Police Chief Robert Contee also opposed having National Guard troops, but for a different reason. "Chief Contee explained to us that he did not want other Federal law enforcement involved on January 6, 2021, because of the risk associated with having unidentified Federal officers carrying weapons within D.C," the memo recorded.

Even as key security officials were shrinking from deploying National Guard troops lest the "optics" send the wrong political message, the Capitol Police was being flooded by the FBI, the Marshal's Service and the Homeland Security Department with raw intelligence warning of possible violence, Just the News reported recently.

Those intelligence reports, which started flowing more than two weeks before the riot, flagged online chatter about waging a "bloody war," using nerve gas, concealing guns, and burning down the Supreme Court and specifically flagged two groups for possible trouble, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.

"Right-wing extremists are talking about tunnels below the Capitol Complex and the allegiances of USCP officers," Capitol Police intelligence expert John T. Nugent Jr. wrote in an email Dec. 21, 2020 sent to a distribution list of the department's Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division.

The Veracity Report has also obtained that email. You can read it here:


Despite the warnings, the president’s offer of troops wasn’t accepted, and the Capitol Police did not take a security posture on Jan. 6 commensurate with the threats.

To date, the House committee investigating Jan. 6 hasn’t provided any explanation as to why.

Compiled by Investigative Reporter Kurt Dillon - Because the Truth Matters!

Copyright 2022 The Veracity Report

Comments / 146

Published by

The Veracity Report is an independent news agency that operates as part of the Wild Orchid Media & Entertainment Network (W.O.M.E.N.). TVR focuses only on factual information so our readers can develop informed opinions based on truth, not hyperbole.

Macon, GA

More from The Veracity Report

Comments / 0