Talk:United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add a new section for "Documents" or "Findings"[edit]

The Committee is subpoenaing and receiving thousands of pages. Some of the documents are interesting/relevant/important. This article doesn't have a section for "Documents" (or "Findings" or "Relevant material" or whatever might be a good name for it). As a result, detailed findings are being dumped in this article's "Timeline." This isn't always the best way to present the info. For example, the press reports that the Committee has received a PowerPoint presentation; a couple days later, the press has additional information that this PowerPoint was authored by Phil Waldron; etc. A reader curious about this PowerPoint has to read the whole timeline and piece together the info for themselves. We don't need the day-by-day tracking of how the PowerPoint was slowly explained in the media. Instead, we need a dedicated paragraph summarizing what is known about the PowerPoint and why it may be important to the investigation. I propose a new section to hold the Committee's findings-in-progress. This section would be distinct from the "timeline" of the Committee's proceedings. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Timeline format is not sustainable. We need to rethink how to present all this before it explodes. soibangla (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Investigation"? That word is used as a section header in Senate Committee for the 9/11 Investigation. To me, that header seems to demand that contributors stay focused on the article's topic (the Committee and its investigation) while still allowing flexibility, as we may want to include info directly released by the Committee itself, leaked info, or contextual info that is investigated and reported by journalists. I might locate this section before the timeline, as casual readers may be looking for a "what's going on with this Committee and what does it all mean" summary before they read a months-long chronology. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but then, the timeline should be split out into: [[Timeline of the proceedings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack]] — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I created a section called "Investigation". It summarizes the existing Timeline. This may allow us either to condense and/or move the Timeline. Please see if you think this section is a useful way to manage the timeline info and/or to substitute for the timeline. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tuckerlieberman Looks great. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add sources to the cause of the Jan 6 attack in the intro?[edit]

Hi everyone, I think we should add a source to the sentence in intro about causes of attack. Do we need to explain that Republicans are vetoing the committee because they disagree about the causes, or is that unnecessary? 222.154.237.170 (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "causes of attack" you refer to — ideological, organizational, logistical, etc. To speak about ideology, Republicans outwardly endorse the Big Lie that the election was rigged, but it's anyone's guess whether they actually believe that. Are you asking whether we should mention that U.S. politics has factionalized over the Big Lie? - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court[edit]

I think today's ruling by the US Supreme Court that the National Archives can release Trump's records should be noted in this article. 2604:CB00:12F:B900:7888:30E3:1374:A7E5 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. It was already in the "Timeline". I also added it to "Obstacles". - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted story about "undercover commandos" anticipating attack on Trump/Pence[edit]

I removed a sentence from the "Revelations" section.

The sentence was: "On January 3, 2022, Newsweek reported, for the first time, the deployment of undercover commandos at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 to manage the "most extreme possibilities," including an attack on President Donald Trump or Vice President Mike Pence." It was cited to Newsweek. Someone else had placed a template for "better source needed."

The reason I removed it is that the Newsweek article does not refer to the U.S. House Select Committee. The Newsweek article is headlined "Exclusive," which means Newsweek was the only news outlet that had this story, which means the information didn't come from a public statement by the House committee. It could have been leaked by a committee member to a Newsweek reporter, but we have no reason to assume that. Only the reporter knows their source.

If the information is valid, it can be integrated into another article about the Capitol attack, such as Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack. It just doesn't belong in this article about the House committee. This particular revelation about "undercover commandos" isn't one of the committee's achievements. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for moving a phrase within the lede[edit]

The lede is currently 2 paragraphs. Paragraph 1 says the committee was "formed through a largely party-line vote on July 1, 2021". I suggest moving this information to Paragraph 2. Reason: Today, it no longer seems to matter much exactly when the committee was formed. Obviously it was formed after January 6 and before the first public hearing on July 27. And all the other timeline info is in Paragraph 2. Objections? - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done No response, so I went ahead and tweaked this in the lede. Please let me know of any objections. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's destruction of documents[edit]

Re: Where to put Donald Trump's routine destruction of presidential records, via ripping or burning? @Soibangla: I saw your question about this in the article edits. How about adding this info to National Archives and Records Administration, insofar as the document destruction affected NARA's ability to archive the documents? Personally I'd be happy if the info were added to Presidency of Donald Trump but editors are probably fussy about that article. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla: At least part of it is relevant on this article about the Jan 6 committee. In the "Obstacles" section, an existing sentence said: "Some of the documents had been previously torn up by Trump and taped back together by NARA staff." After that, I added: "Trump is said to have routinely shredded and flushed records by his own hand, as well as to have asked staff to place them in burn bags, throughout his presidency. Some of his call records from the day of the attack are missing, suggesting he was using a personal cell phone; his personal phone records had not yet been subpoenaed as of early February 2022." Do you think that's appropriate here? - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We may just need a new article:
"Some Trump records taken to Mar-a-Lago clearly marked as classified, including documents at 'top secret' level".
soibangla (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing phone calls[edit]

Are Trump's missing phone logs mentioned here? Or if not here, where?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're not missing now. In the absence of advice I was WP:BOLD.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Took me a few clicks to find Wikipedia's section about these public hearings, so I've created a few redirects in case folks are using similar search terms:

---Another Believer (Talk) 01:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Per creation of United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack public hearings, I've redirected the first two links to the third. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split?[edit]

This article's getting a bit long. Perhaps we should fork out the timeline, public hearings, or subpoenas section? Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed the subpoena table, which may aid readability. We could fork the timeline, maybe the hearings will deserve their own article but perhaps not yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu Thanks, but how does one uncollapse the subpoenas table? I can't click on "show". ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User error. Syntax fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hats off to the great work being done here but I don't understand what you are waiting for when it comes to giving more coverage here and starting the new article to cover the hearings. When is the last time that every major TV network showed anything similar for two hours of their highest money making hours, their primetime slots. This was/is a big deal that will go down in history as a memorable event...I think... Sectionworker (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What more do we need to say than we are saying here, though? It may be that after we have more hearings, there is enough detail to justify a split. We could always draft something at Draft:January 6 Committee public hearings or something like that. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could wait a little while. But I do anticipate the info will rapidly increase. In this article on the committee, the info on the 1st hearing alone is already over 500 words. There will be at least 5 hearings, so we could easily have 2500 words just describing what happens at each one, plus any overarching narrative that emerges, plus any relevant reactions (Biden, Trump, media, public, etc.) or related news events (as a hypothetical example, any high-profile arrests). We could wait, but perhaps not too long, since readers may already be searching for the article about the hearings specifically, as implied by @Sectionworker's comment above. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think there should be a separate article for the public hearings. These hearings are presenting something close to the committee's final narrative, and for many people (I'm sure) the TV broadcast is the first time they've heard of this committee — which is to say that the hearings are an entry point for thinking/caring about the issue. Ultimately, an article about "the committee" might focus on the workings of government, while other articles could focus on the final official narrative about January 6 and the political/cultural impact of the narrative. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed the news for all these months and thought I had a pretty good idea of what took place and yet after watching the Thursday night presentation it almost seemed all new and fresh because it was presented so well. In all these months I have never checked out what we were doing to document what went on but after watching the first of the hearings I found this article (which is again, just excellent) but was really surprised that the editors here had not had a new hearings article started. BTW, I think that you should consider one sentence in the lead re the hearings--I agree that for many people the hearings will be the first time they have been fully exposed to this news. Sectionworker (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "Hats off to the great work being done here"". These "HOT" articles are a challenge and the editors working here deserve praise for maintaining editor courtesy and decorum. ―Buster7 ☎ 15:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be support for forking the Public hearings section out to United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack public hearings. Page title can always be discussed later, but this at least mirrors the parent article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 June 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is consensus against the proposed move. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC) — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack → January 6 committee – Though the current title is (part) of the official name of the committee, the common name and more concise name is "January 6 committee". This has been used by news outlets like CNN, CBS, NPR, FiveThirtyEight, and Fox News, among many others. Even the actual committee uses this name for their Twitter handle (albeit with "6th" not "6", but we would have it be 6 per MOS:ORDINAL, like the current title). "January 6 committee" is what people will be searching for. This move would also align this article with the titling of the January 6 commission article. As for the concern of possible confusion between the two pages, confusion is already occurring and is being solved by hatnotes. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 02:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per consistency with other committees, e.g. the House Judiciary Committee. cookie monster 755 06:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per consistency and WP:PRECISION, as we also have an article on the proposed January 6 commission to disambiguate from. I don't think making the page title more similar is a positive. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I noted in the original proposal, confusion is already occurring and is being solved by hatnotes. They are on similar subjects, it's okay if they have similar titles. WP:PRECISION doesn't restrict this move: there is no other January 6 committee, real or proposed. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 20:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And January 6 committee currently redirects here, which also solves that issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose. I tend to agree with the above concerns about whether the proposed title is sufficiently precise. BD2412 T 00:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent. I acknowledge the pros and cons that others have raised. Either approach seems valid to me. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose Since this is a global encyclopedia, and since things can change, and to match naming (convention? tradition?) of other house committees. Above, BappleBusiness asserts, without diffs, that the existing title is creating problematic levels of confusion. If there are no diffs to back this up, then I'm done leaning and firmly say "oppose". Got diffs, B? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose for reasons others have described. It might be good if someone would change the January 6 CMTE redirect to January 6 committee; I can't do it. Maybe also delete the January 6 commission redirect, as it might cause user confusion. soibangla (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current title is too long to be useful and this proposal satisfies common name without leading to confusion. Cf. United States Senate Watergate Committee, 9/11 Commission. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per consistency. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This might be a nitpick, but were we to change the name, I'd recommend January 6th Committee with a capital C instead. That seems to be an official alternate name they use on their social media (see Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube) --Woko Sapien (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We usually use the full formal name of committees as the title, with a redirect from more common or simpler names. And as Muboshgu noted above, we already have January 6 committee as a redirect to this article. So "January 6 committee" brings the reader to this article and there is no need to change the title here. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why no mention of Jamie Raskin tried overturning the 2016 Presidential Election[edit]

It's interesting that this piece was put into the article: "Banks, Jordan, and Nehls voted to overturn the Electoral College results in Arizona and Pennsylvania."

Presumably this was done as a reason why they should be invalidated from being on the panel for a fair and free election. Only issue is that Jamie Raskin... a Democrat... tried overturning the 2016 Electoral College results in Florida. Of course there are multiple Reliable Sources for this claim. [1] [2] [3]

So then the question obviously is why is these Republicans trying to invalidate the results in 2020 in this article, but a Democrat who did the same in 2016 is not mentioned? The fact it's mentioned at all is used as some kind of excuse why they aren't allowed on the panel... but Raskin... no? 118.208.27.183 (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the false equivalency. There's no issue with questioning or challenging the results when there is a valid reason to do so vs. falsely asserting disproven claims of election fraud and siccing your followers on the Capitol building, encouraging them to disrupt the electoral college count, and suggesting your own vice president should be hung for failing to do something he had no constitutional authority or prerogative to do. The current investigation is about the latter, not the former. MAGATs can try and spin that any way they choose, but that doesn't make it notable or worth mentioning. Anyone who bothered to take time to learn how Wikipedia works would understand that. The real shame is that you don't. --Jgstokes (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Raskin et al. voiced objections but were all told to shut up. By Joe Biden. 147 Repubicans voted on their objections. soibangla (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall Hillary Clinton or any Democratic members of Congress participating in a "Stop the Steal" rally and encouraging a mob to storm the Capitol to prevent the Electoral College vote certification. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407
  2. ^ https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/01/13/flashback_lead_impeachment_manager_jamie_raskin_attempted_to_object_to_electoral_vote_certification_for_trump_in_2017.html
  3. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-count-objections/index.html

What happened to the chart listing the hearings scheduled for June?[edit]

What happened to the chart listing the hearings scheduled for June? WordwizardW (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It packed up and moved to United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack public hearings. soibangla (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose removing phrase describing Stepien fallback testimony[edit]

Apologies if this is not the correct format to make this kind of suggestion, and with the understanding I should not be using the semi-protected edit request template prior to making a post like this: Suggest removing or providing an alternative source for the text "interspersed with nervous "you know"s and repetitions", which appears editorialized and doesn't seem to have corresponding text in the provided source (there is a use of the phrase "you know" in a quotation of Stepien's testimony). Alternatively, perhaps a different source could be provided that does describe Stepien's testimony as such, with clarifying language that it's him being described as nervous (currently it reads as the committee being nervous) and language like "which was described by..." Nezac (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at this edit or the cited reference, but would like to express appreciation for how you brought it up, which was great. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update, now that I have looked at this, I agree with you and removed that text. Thanks. Do you know about Template:Failed verification? If you find other things of this sort, you can change them or alternatively tag them with the template. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Public" hearings[edit]

For context, the house rules designate all hearings as "public" except when there is a vote to close them, and maybe there are other exceptions, I'm not sure. The Jan 6 panel has held a number of proceedings before the first splashy prime time hearing a few days ago. I don't know how many, and I don't know if those were technically "hearings".

Does anyone have references that tell us whether the prior proceedings were public, and what kind of proceeding they were? And just to be crystal clear, I'm not talking about TV cameras. I'm just asking if interested citizens who got there early were allowed to sit in the room and observe?

Thanks (revised) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Leavitt writes for The Conversation: "I am a scholar of Congressional oversight...a crucial distinction: Investigations are meant to acquire information, hearings are meant to present it."
So I'm guessing that anything classed as "investigation" could be private.
A lot of the witness interviews were done by videoconference — if not for covid precautions, then to save time and expense, as they had to interview multiple people per day (1,000 people in less than a year). Some interviews were in-person, though. Journalists don't always find out who was subpoenaed and who showed up for their interview. Even the Justice Dept wasn't invited to these interviews; they wrote a letter begging to read the committee's interview transcripts.
Apart from interviews, I don't know what sort of proceedings you have in mind.
— Tuckerlieberman (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I noticed the Congressional Record mentioned some business meetings and there was at least one press release to come out of one of those, and on the strength of that I cast a wide net with this question, without anything specific in mind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have a "public findings" section AND a "revelations" section?[edit]

The "public findings" section headings and the "revelations" section heading seem redundant to me. If they are distinct, could someone add explanatory text to the start of each, please? Alternatively, they should be merged somehow. I think I favor cataloguing the blow by blow in a dedicated sub article and importing key summary paragraphs via Template:Excerpt ...... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the history on this Talk page under the heading Add a new section for "Documents" or "Findings". To sum up: Last year, the article had a "Timeline," but it didn't yet have an overarching narrative that stitched together the meaning. The timeline was understandably getting messy, because every time the committee announced a thing, we had to re-explain the thing. So, last December, I created the "Investigation" section with subheadings "Revelations" (mostly consisting of stuff they got from Mark Meadows in December) and "Obstacles" (e.g., not finding documents because Trump had torn them up).
This month, we created a new subsection "Public hearings," which was relabeled to "Public findings". I am not sure why it was relabeled. I'm not quite sure what "public findings" is. Findings that have been made public?
Anyway, I agree, @NewsAndEventsGuy — at this point, the "Revelations" subsection is kind of obsolete. It may not need to be deleted, but it needs to be reframed and reorganized. It may continue to be significant that the committee got a bunch of info from Mark Meadows in December, since that was a big "break in the case," as I believe detectives phrase it. But other revelations are currently being presented as part of the narrative in the public hearings, and that narrative is being described on the Public Hearings article (in progress).
Readers may benefit most from reverse chronological order here: (1) a brief summary of the narrative presented at the public hearings in June 2022, with a link to that article for more detail, followed by (2) a brief history of how the committee reached that narrative, during their work in late 2021–early 2022.
Do you have an idea of how to go about this rewrite? — Tuckerlieberman (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we condense and archive the material here, and steer people to the article(s) about the hearings, where we should hyperfocus efforts toorganize the snot out of that material and the evidence presented at the hearings. In particular, I added the seven part plan to the first hearing (under opening statements). As the hearings unfold, we should organize our coverage of each with a mind to link the corresponding entry in the list to enable any numskull to easily go from the list to the section that reports the corresponding evidence. The committee has a couple C130s of evidence more than they can present at the hearings of course and much of that will make it into RSs available to us. But with our limited time, I think its best to focus on the hearing articles and evidence, and return to think about the supplemental info later. Does that makes sense? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, @NewsAndEventsGuy.
For now, as a quick improvement, I changed the subheadings.
"Revelations" became "Information received from Mark Meadows."
Under "Public findings," I added subheadings "June 2022 public hearings" and "Final report."
This way, if a reader is looking for this month's TV schedule, it's obvious what to click.
As a result, the Table of Contents currently looks like this:
— Tuckerlieberman (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Super thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the logo be in the infobox?[edit]

GordonGlottal (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask? (See WP:VAGUEWAVE) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DOJ investigation[edit]

It appears it might be time to create Federal investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election or some such. I've never created an article and I'm certain I'd take Wikipedia offline if I tried, but if someone wants to create a stub I'm ready to load it up, because it's accelerating now.

soibangla (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; I'm guessing there is more than one and with time they may split into separate articles. How about DOJ investigations related to the 2020 US presidential election and subsequent events? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you open any page in your userspace, just replace the page name in the url and type the new name. You'll be asked if you want to create it? Since its your user space, its just a sandbox to test things out and get started. Add Template:stub at the top, draft a couple paragraphs, and export to article space when you're satisfied. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Trump alternate electors controversy[edit]

I'm pretty sure this needs an article now. Both DOJ and the committee are investigating it. Please feel free to contribute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Trump_alternate_electors_controversy

soibangla (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks for starting that NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: DOJ investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election[edit]

So, Marc Short testified before the DOJ grand jury last week. The only previously known witness was Ali Alexander, so Short is a pretty big deal.

While editing this J6 committee article, I've come across DOJ stuff that technically doesn't belong here, but it belongs somewhere. So I created this draft for that stuff, because after a very slow start (visibly, anyway) this investigation might take off like a rocket at some point and it wouldn't be good if we got caught flat-footed. So I'm going to start building this out and I encourage others to contribute.

Draft:United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election soibangla (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree this article should be created. Material from United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, under the section Simultaneous investigations by the Justice Department, should be moved over there. The January 6 Committee article is already very long, and it ought to just have a couple sentences saying "indeed there are simultaneous investigations by the Justice Dept" with a link to a separate article. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla, I copied the relevant material into the draft article. If/when the draft article goes live (hopefully soon!), we can delete it from this House committee article. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article went live today: United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. From this House committee article, I deleted the material that is mostly about the DOJ's investigation. That info has been put on the DOJ article where it belongs. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

little Mistake[edit]

July 28: 2022 "Jeffrey Rosen" needs to be "Jeffrey A. Rosen" .Regards --Flo Beck (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 12:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022[edit]

Please change the reference to Denver Riggleman from "a former U.S. House representative" to "a former U.S. Representative". 175.39.61.121 (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: removed "House," but left "representative" uncapitalized for consistency with the site. Ductwork (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022 (2)[edit]

Please replace "Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)" with "Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois". Having both "Republican" and "R-IL" is redundant, and since this area is talking about partisan reactions, it's better to retain "Republican" instead of the "R-" element. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ductwork (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical mistake[edit]

Under the October 2022 section of the "Timeline of proceedings" the October 11 bullet should read "... Capitol Police confirmed that there was ..." and not their. Also, removing "anything" from the following quote would improve readability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.92.127 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow committee report[edit]

The shadow committee report was released on Wednesday; I think it should be mentioned in the "Reactions" section. See [1] and [2] for details. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022[edit]

Under the "Final Report" section, please capitalize properly the captions for the links to both the executive summary and the final report itself. 2607:FEA8:2B1F:F254:7C03:7F7B:2100:E2F9 (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - request seems a bit unclear to me at the moment - nonetheless - tried to "capitalize "Executive Summary" and "Final Report"" in the Final Report section as noted - seems ok - please comment if otherwise of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the edit. The request was intended more in the spirit of MOS:CAPS, as the original captions were written entirely in lowercase. 2607:FEA8:2B1F:F254:FD5F:A58E:EE80:4171 (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Christian Nationalism and the final report[edit]

I’m putting together sources on my talk page showing that the final report deliberately omitted referring to the phenomenon of Christian Nationalism as a primary cause of the insurrection (it is referred to just once in passing) because they were worried about upsetting religious Americans. It is generally well known and established that the January 6 insurrection was motivated by Christian Nationalism and that the Council for National Policy was behind aspects of its organization and possibly even its funding. Groups like Documented and media outlets like WaPo have already covered this so it is easy to source. The fact that the Committee chose to ignore this has been challenged by some secular as well as some Christian leaders. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Please feel free to include this information on the page about Christian nationalism as well. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"False slate"?[edit]

In the role column of the table, the following appears 15 times:

Listed as [office] for [State] on false slate of Trump electors

What does this expression mean? To me, a slate is a blackboard small enough to be held in one hand and written on with the other. I know its metaphorical use in the expression "wipe the slate clean", but that sheds no light. What does false slate mean here, and what is the list referred to? Koro Neil (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koro Neil, one of the definitions of "slate" by Merriam-Webster is a list of candidates for nomination or election. That is clearly the meaning intended here. The Trump campaign submitted list of electors in several states, claiming that these lists were legitimate when they were not. Cullen328 (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did the January 6 Committee hide evidence?[edit]

"Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee suppressed evidence that President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital, a previously hidden transcript obtained by The Federalist shows. Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had 'no evidence' to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now." https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/08/exclusive-liz-cheney-january-6-committee-suppressed-exonerating-evidence-of-trumps-push-for-national-guard/ Topcat777 (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Federalist is not a reliable source. Mollie Hemingway is a noted dissembler. Her "evidence" is a transcribed interview with Anthony Ornato. The DC National Guard answers to the President, not the mayor. It seems the committee followed the evidence appropriately. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released a transcribed interview the January 6 Select Committee conducted with President Trump's former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato, which shows President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital. The interview also shows White House frustration with slow deployment of assistance. The Select Committee conducted this interview in January of 2022, but never released it...." https://cha.house.gov/2024/3/chairman-loudermilk-publishes-never-before-released-anthony-ornato-transcribed-interview
Ornato interview: https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/3/b/3b713ae6-5426-4d5c-9853-b19fcb7d75a5/7AA2E4D00C62DE8F036EE90481BC8EE2.ornato-ti.pdf Topcat777 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we can't use Loudermilk's press release, either soibangla (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if Mollie knew this. I'd wager she did:

The transcript was never released publicly by the House Jan. 6 committee, which entered into an agreement with the Secret Service regarding 12 interviews to avoid disclosing “privacy information, for-official-use-only information, intelligence and law enforcement sensitive records and raw intelligence information.”[3]

soibangla (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack&oldid=1213265664"