NYTimes Implies Some Kind Of Overreach By Jan. 6th Committee

NYTimes Implies Some Kind Of Overreach By Jan. 6th Committee

Look at this misleading article that was highlighted in the New York Times yesterday:

The House select committee scrutinizing the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol is borrowing techniques from federal prosecutions, employing aggressive tactics typically used against mobsters and terrorists as it seeks to break through stonewalling from former President Donald J. Trump and his allies and develop evidence that could prompt a criminal case.

In what its members see as the best opportunity to hold Mr. Trump and his team accountable, the committee — which has no authority to pursue criminal charges — is using what powers it has in expansive ways in hopes of pressuring Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to use the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute them.

The panel’s investigation is being run by a former U.S. attorney, and the top investigator brought in to focus on Mr. Trump’s inner circle is also a former U.S. attorney. The panel has hired more than a dozen other former federal prosecutors.

And? AND?

Michael S. Schmidt and Luke Broadwater actually compare the work of the committee to…. the insanely political Benghazi hearings! They didn’t have an intense investigation because the Republicans knew there was no legal basis!

By comparison, the House select committee that spent two and a half years investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack issued just a dozen or so subpoenas — a small fraction of the number issued by the Jan. 6 committee so far — and made no criminal referrals.

Then there’s this:

The committee’s aggressive approach carries with it another obvious risk: that it could fail to turn up compelling new information about Mr. Trump’s efforts to hold onto power after his defeat or to make a persuasive case for a Justice Department prosecution. Mr. Trump survived years of scrutiny by the special counsel in the Russia investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, and two impeachments. Despite a swirl of new investigations since he left office, the former president remains the dominant force in Republican politics.

I have to wonder: Are these reporters really this stupid? Mueller was hobbled by Bill Barr — he was not permitted to pursue investigations into counterintelligence matters, which of course would lead to Russia.

And then there’s the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Russian active measures campaign and interference in the 2016 election.

The story is bullshit. Was the Watergate Committee “prosecutorial?” Would you ever think to describe it as such? These reporters know that describing it as such feeds an existing Right Wing argument. Please stop supporting Trumpism. https://t.co/A5At1LW2DG

— Armando (@ArmandoNDK) February 7, 2022

Also, Benghazi is the only investigation the NYT article directly compares to the Jan. 6 investigation, which it portrays as aggressive by comparison.
The only mention of Whitewater and Iran-Contra are from a Trump staffer’s lawyer. Watergate and 9/11 don’t come up at all. pic.twitter.com/WDQ7LrDbP7

— Nicholas Grossman (@NGrossman81) February 6, 2022

By making Benghazi its main analogue for Jan. 6, and by not mentioning the Watergate or 9/11 investigations, writers @nytmike and @lukebroadwater falsely communicate that this investigation is manufactured to smear political opponents, wrongly downplaying the seriousness.

— Nicholas Grossman (@NGrossman81) February 6, 2022

Source link