January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[a fan]

Dan Crenshaw claims election deniers admit it 'was always a lie' behind closed doors

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) asserted on a podcast Wednesday that elected officials who have publicly said they could overturn the 2020 election knew it was not possible.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... osed-doors

Great. Keep right on playin' with this fire, folks. What could possibly go wrong?

[dislaxxic]

When Trump Announces Candidacy, Watchdog Will File Insurrection Disqualification Challenge

When Donald Trump announces he’s running for the presidency, as he’s expected to do, a watchdog group plans to file a challenge under the 14th Amendment, which bars reelection of officials who engaged in or supported an insurrection.

“The evidence that Trump engaged in insurrection is overwhelming,” Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement last week. “We are ready, willing and able to take action to make sure the Constitution is upheld and Trump is prevented from holding office.”

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, bars any officials who have taken an oath of office to defend the government from reelection if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the government — or have “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

CREW sent a letter to Trump on Thursday alerting him to the planned challenge if he announces his candidacy for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

“CREW believes you are barred from holding office Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment because you engaged in insurrection against the government you swore to defend,” states the letter. “By summoning a violent mob to disrupt the transition of presidential power mandated by the Constitution after having sworn to defend the same, you made yourself ineligible to hold public office again.”

The “evidence that you engaged in insurrection as contemplated in the Fourteenth Amendment — including by mobilizing, inciting and aiding those attacking the Capitol — is overwhelming,” the letter adds.

..

[old salt]

For the benefit of non-WSJ subscribers.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-tru ... lead_pos10

Mike Pence: My Last Days With Donald Trump

I supported legitimate challenges to the 2020 vote counts. I also recognized that the Constitution didn’t give me authority to override the voters—and I followed my conscience on Jan. 6.

By Mike Pence, Nov. 9, 2022

Thirteen days after the 2020 election, I had lunch with President Trump. I told him that if his legal challenges came up short, he could simply accept the results, move forward with the transition, and start a political comeback, winning the Senate runoffs in Georgia, the 2021 Virginia governor’s race, and the House and Senate in 2022. Then he could run for president in 2024 and win. He seemed unmoved, even weary: “I don’t know, 2024 is so far off.”

In a Dec. 5 call, the president for the first time mentioned challenging the election results in Congress. By mid-December, the internet was filled with speculation about my role. An irresponsible TV ad by a group calling itself the Lincoln Project suggested that when I presided over the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes, it would prove that I knew “it’s over,” and that by doing my constitutional duty, I would be “putting the final nail in the coffin” of the president’s re-election. To my knowledge, it was the first time anyone implied I might be able to change the outcome. It was designed to annoy the president. It worked. During a December cabinet meeting, President Trump told me the ad “looked bad for you.” I replied that it wasn’t true: I had fully supported the legal challenges to the election and would continue to do so.

On Dec. 19, the president mentioned plans for a rally in Washington on Jan. 6. I thought that would be useful to call attention to the proceedings. I had just spoken with a senator about the importance of vetting concerns about the election before Congress and the American people. At the White House on Dec. 21, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan led lawmakers in a discussion about plans to bring objections. I promised that all properly submitted objections would be recognized and fully debated.

On Dec. 23, my family boarded Air Force Two to spend Christmas with friends. As we flew across America, President Trump retweeted an obscure article titled “Operation Pence Card.” It alluded to the theory that if all else failed, I could alter the outcome of the election on Jan. 6. I showed it to Karen, my wife, and rolled my eyes.

On Dec. 30, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley announced that he would co-sponsor election objections brought by representatives. I welcomed Sen. Hawley’s decision because it meant we would have a substantive debate. Without a senator’s support, I would have been required to dismiss House objections without debate, something I didn’t want to do.

Early on New Year’s Day, the phone rang. Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert and other Republicans had filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to declare that I had “exclusive authority and sole discretion” to decide which electoral votes should count. “I don’t want to see ‘Pence Opposes Gohmert Suit’ as a headline this morning,” the president said. I told him I did oppose it. “If it gives you the power,” he asked, “why would you oppose it?” I told him, as I had many times, that I didn’t believe I possessed that power under the Constitution.

“You’re too honest,” he chided. “Hundreds of thousands are gonna hate your guts. . . . People are gonna think you’re stupid.”

On Saturday, Jan. 2, I instructed my chief of staff to issue a statement supporting the right of lawmakers to bring objections under the Electoral Count Act. By Sunday morning, the headline “Pence Welcomes Congressional Republicans’ Bid to Challenge Electoral Votes” was everywhere. When the president called me that morning, his mood had brightened. “You have gone from very unpopular to popular!” he exclaimed. But then he pressed me again to reject electoral votes unilaterally. “You can be a historic figure,” he said, “but if you wimp out, you’re just another somebody.”

On Jan. 4, the president’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, summoned me to the Oval Office for a meeting with a long list of attendees, including the legal scholar John Eastman. I listened respectfully as Mr. Eastman argued that I should modify the proceedings, which require that electoral votes be opened and counted in alphabetical order, by saving the five disputed states until the end. Mr. Eastman claimed I had the authority to return the votes to the states until each legislature certified which of the competing slate of electors for the state was correct. I had already confirmed that there were no competing electors.

Mr. Eastman repeatedly qualified his argument, saying it was only a legal theory. I asked, “Do you think I have the authority to reject or return votes?”

He stammered, “Well, it’s never been tested in the courts, so I think it is an open question.”

At that I turned to the president, who was distracted, and said, “Mr. President, did you hear that? Even your lawyer doesn’t think I have the authority to return electoral votes.” The president nodded. As Mr. Eastman struggled to explain, the president replied, “I like the other thing better,” presumably meaning that I could simply reject electoral votes.

On Jan. 5, I got an urgent call that the president was asking to see me in the Oval Office. The president’s lawyers, including Mr. Eastman, were now requesting that I simply reject the electors. I later learned that Mr. Eastman had conceded to my general counsel that rejecting electoral votes was a bad idea and any attempt to do so would be quickly overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court. This guy didn’t even believe what he was telling the president.

Right before going to bed, I saw that the Trump campaign had issued a statement. The New York Times reported that I had told the president I didn’t believe I had the power to block congressional certification of the election. That was true, but the statement called it “fake news.” I had a feeling that Jan. 6, 2021, was going to be a very long day.

I rose early that day and worked on my statement to Congress. When the phone rang a little after 11 a.m., it was the president. “Despite the press release you issued last night,” I said, “I have always been forthright with you, Mr. President.” I reiterated that I didn’t believe I had the power to decide which electoral votes would count and said I would be issuing a statement to Congress confirming that before the joint session started.

The president laid into me. “You’ll go down as a wimp,” he said. “If you do that, I made a big mistake five years ago!”

But when he said, “You’re not protecting our country, you’re supposed to support and defend our country!” I calmly reminded him, “We both took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.”

As I headed to the Capitol, President Trump took the stage. He told the crowd: “I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election.” Repeating the argument made by the crank lawyers standing just offstage, he said, “All he has to do, all this is, this is from the No. 1, or certainly one of the top, constitutional lawyers in our country. . . . All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.”

As our motorcade arrived at the Capitol, I saw thousands of protesters standing peacefully on the East Lawn. I felt compassion for all the good people who had traveled to Washington having been told that the outcome of the election could be changed. They cheered as we entered. I turned to my daughter and sighed: “God bless those people. They’re gonna be so disappointed.”

I had no idea that what was later described as a “wall of people” had formed about a block west of the Capitol. As I led senators onto the House floor, the mood was solemn. There was no indication of the mayhem unfolding outside. Speaker Nancy Pelosi gaveled the chamber into session a little after 1 p.m.

When the electoral votes for Arizona were opened, Rep. Paul Gosar rose to raise the first objection of the day, co-sponsored by 60 representatives. When I asked if the motion had a Senate sponsor, Ted Cruz rose. I adjourned the joint session and accompanied senators back to their chamber, still oblivious to the riot outside.

Forty minutes into the session, Republican James Lankford of Oklahoma had the floor when the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, seated a few feet in front of me, leaned back in her chair and whispered: “Mr. Vice President, protesters have breached the building’s doors on the first floor. Just informing you.”

A member of my Secret Service detail walked onto the Senate floor, straight to my chair, and said, “Mr. Vice President, we gotta go.” I was confident that the U.S. Capitol Police would soon have the situation in hand, so I told him we’d wait in the nearby ceremonial office reserved for my use as president of the Senate.

Soon my lead Secret Service agent, Timothy Giebels, walked into that crowded office and said, “Sir, we’ve got to get you out of the building.” The protesters who had smashed their way into the House side of the Capitol were heading for the Senate. I later learned that many had come looking for me.

I told my detail that I wasn’t leaving my post. Mr. Giebels pleaded for us to leave. The rioters had reached our floor. I pointed my finger at his chest and said, “You’re not hearing me, I’m not leaving! I’m not giving those people the sight of a 16-car motorcade speeding away from the Capitol.”

“OK,” he answered in a voice that made it clear that it wasn’t. “Well, we can’t stay here. This office only has a glass door, and we can’t protect you.”

My daughter Charlotte, sensing my frustration, asked, “Isn’t there somewhere else dad can go that is still in the Capitol?” Mr. Giebels said we could move to the loading dock and garage, a few stories below. I agreed.

The steps were secured. We walked out into the hall slowly. All around us was a blur of motion and chaos: security and police officers directing people to safety, staffers shouting and running for shelter. I heard footsteps and angry chanting. Making our way to the basement of the Capitol took a few extra minutes because I insisted that we walk, not run. The Secret Service team grudgingly accommodated me.

Arriving in the loading dock, we saw that our motorcade had been repositioned, with all the cars pointed toward a ramp leading out. Mr. Giebels began to escort us toward our cars. I stopped and said, “I’m not getting in the car.”

“Sir,” he replied, “we’re just going to have you wait in the car, but we are not leaving the Capitol.”

“Tim, I believe you,” I said. “You’re a man of integrity, but you’re not driving that car.” I knew that if we got into the car, somebody would tell the driver to get us out of the building.

We had no television in the garage, so my staff and security team briefed me on the situation using police radio communications and Twitter. The House and Senate leaders had been whisked away to a secure location off Capitol Hill, but other members were barricaded in the House chamber as Capitol Police worked to hold back the mob.

My unflappable assistant Zach Bauer walked up sheepishly and handed me his phone. The president had sent a tweet at 2:24 p.m.: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

Rioters were ransacking the Capitol. Some of them, I was later told, were chanting, “Hang Mike Pence!” I ignored the tweet and got back to work.

My chief of staff arranged for a conference call with the congressional leadership. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made the point that it was imperative Congress reconvene as soon as possible to complete the vote count. Everyone agreed.

By 2:38 p.m., it appeared that cooler heads had prevailed at the White House. The president tweeted, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” A half hour later, he urged the rioters to “remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order—respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue.” At 4:17 p.m., the president issued a video telling the rioters, “I know your pain, I know your hurt . . . but you have to go home now, we have to have peace.”

By 7 p.m., we had been cleared to return to my office. When the session reconvened, everything changed. Many lawmakers withdrew support for objections that had been properly filed. Beyond the violence and destruction, the Jan. 6 rioters had managed to end the debate over election irregularities. At around 3:40 a.m., Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota read the results of the 2020 election.

I met with the president on Jan. 11. He looked tired, and his voice seemed fainter than usual. “How are you?” he began. “How are Karen and Charlotte?” I replied tersely that we were fine and told him that they had been at the Capitol on Jan. 6. He responded with a hint of regret, “I just learned that.” He then asked, “Were you scared?”

“No,” I replied, “I was angry. You and I had our differences that day, Mr. President, and seeing those people tearing up the Capitol infuriated me.”

He started to bring up the election, saying that people were angry, but his voice trailed off.

I told him he had to set that aside, and he responded quietly, “Yeah.”

I said, “Those people who broke into the Capitol might’ve been supporters, but they are not our movement.” For five years, we had both spoken to crowds of the most patriotic, law-abiding, God-fearing people in the country.

With genuine sadness in his voice, the president mused: “What if we hadn’t had the rally? What if they hadn’t gone to the Capitol?” Then he said, “It’s too terrible to end like this.”

On Jan. 14, the day after President Trump was impeached for the second time, I stopped by the Oval Office. The night before, he had unequivocally denounced the violence at the Capitol and called for calm and national unity. I congratulated him on his address. “I knew you’d like it,” he said. He seemed discouraged, so I reminded him that I was praying for him.

“Don’t bother,” he said.

As I stood to leave, he said, “It’s been fun.”

“A privilege, Mr. President,” I answered.

“Yeah, with you.”

Walking toward the door leading to the hallway, I paused, looked the president in the eye, and said, “I guess we will just have to disagree on two things.”

“What?”

I referred to our disagreement about Jan. 6 and then said, “I’m also never gonna stop praying for you.”

He smiled: “That’s right—don’t ever change.”

Mr. Pence was vice president of the United States, 2017-21. This is adapted from his memoir, “So Help Me God,” forthcoming Nov. 15.

[MDlaxfan76]

Thanks for sharing.
Apparently, Trump didn't call him a "wimp"...it was "the P-word"...

[Farfromgeneva]

Thanks for sharing.
Apparently, Trump didn't call him a "wimp"...it was "the P-word"...

He soo badly needs a punch in the face. That’s what happens to everyone else who rocks around talking like that. I’ve seen it in a DB white collar exec office once even.

[Kismet]

SCOTUS just vacated AZ GOPer Kelli Ward's stay over turning over her phone records to the Jan. 6 committee.
Clarence and Sam dissented.

elmopetey won't be happy AGAIN!

[Seacoaster(1)]

SCOTUS just vacated AZ GOPer Kelli Ward's stay over turning over her phone records to the Jan. 6 committee.
Clarence and Sam dissented.

elmopetey won't be happy AGAIN!

Laurence Tribe writes, about the Kelli Ward decision:

"Justice Thomas violated 28 USC 455 (a) & 28 USC 455 (b)(5)(iii) by not recusing himself from this 7-2 decision: His wife Ginny pressed 29 GOP AZ lawmakers to overturn Biden's victory. He knew she had 'an interest that could be affected by the outcome.'"

So the Court has that going for it too.

[Typical Lax Dad]

SCOTUS just vacated AZ GOPer Kelli Ward's stay over turning over her phone records to the Jan. 6 committee.
Clarence and Sam dissented.

elmopetey won't be happy AGAIN!

Laurence Tribe writes, about the Kelli Ward decision:

"Justice Thomas violated 28 USC 455 (a) & 28 USC 455 (b)(5)(iii) by not recusing himself from this 7-2 decision: His wife Ginny pressed 29 GOP AZ lawmakers to overturn Biden's victory. He knew she had 'an interest that could be affected by the outcome.'"

So the Court has that going for it too.

The rot has no end.

[CU88]

One of the reasons that 2xIMPOTUS o d is going to run for POTUS in 2024.


"In this second edition of our October 2021 report, we review the investigation and its basis. We assess the publicly known facts and relevant law and analyze the extent to which the former president may be held criminally responsible for his conduct in Georgia. We conclude that Trump is at substantial risk of criminal prosecution in Fulton County."

https://www.brookings.edu/research/seco ... stigation/

[Kismet]

https://www.justsecurity.org/83891/the- ... -failures/

The Missing Review of FBI’s January 6 Intelligence and Law Enforcement Failures

[CU88]

https://www.justsecurity.org/83891/the- ... -failures/

The Missing Review of FBI’s January 6 Intelligence and Law Enforcement Failures

Is anyone here surprised?

Deplorable flag wrapped white jar heads thinking that they are Judge/Jury/Justice.

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://www.justsecurity.org/83891/the- ... -failures/

The Missing Review of FBI’s January 6 Intelligence and Law Enforcement Failures

Is anyone here surprised?

Deplorable flag wrapped white jar heads thinking that they are Judge/Jury/Justice.

I confess I am a little surprised. The level and scope of the intelligence forewarning the FBI and others of the likelihood of a move against the capitol building and the certification process is considerably greater than I, anyway, knew about.

[Kismet]

https://www.justsecurity.org/83891/the- ... -failures/

The Missing Review of FBI’s January 6 Intelligence and Law Enforcement Failures

Is anyone here surprised?

Deplorable flag wrapped white jar heads thinking that they are Judge/Jury/Justice.

I confess I am a little surprised. The level and scope of the intelligence forewarning the FBI and others of the likelihood of a move against the capitol building and the certification process is considerably greater than I, anyway, knew about.

Remember who was in charge of the Executive Branch during this time. Then it will not be so surprising. Apparent;y, Secret Service, too.

[old salt]

Interesting typical inside DC leak induced squabble between Liz Cheney & select comm staff members on the final report.
For non-subscribers, here's the WP report :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... committee/

Jan. 6 panel staffers angry at Cheney for focusing so much of report on Trump
15 former and current staffers expressed concern that important findings unrelated to Trump will not become available to the American public
By Jacqueline Alemany, Josh Dawsey and Carol D. Leonnig, November 23, 2022 at 4:40 p.m. EST

Since Rep. Liz Cheney accepted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s offer to serve as the vice chair of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the Wyoming Republican has exerted a remarkable level of control over much of the committee’s public and private work.

Now, less than six weeks before the conclusion of the committee’s work, Cheney’s influence over the committee’s final report has rankled many current and former committee staff. They are angered and disillusioned by Cheney’s push to focus the report primarily on former president Donald Trump, and have bristled at the committee morphing into what they have come to view as the vehicle for the outgoing Wyoming lawmaker’s political future.

Fifteen former and current staffers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, expressed concerns that important findings unrelated to Trump will not become available to the American public.

The feuding brings to the fore a level of public acrimony within the Jan. 6 committee that previously had largely played out behind the scenes, as public attention was focused on a series of blockbuster public hearings focused on Trump’s role fomenting the attack.

Several committee staff members were floored earlier this month when they were told that a draft report would focus almost entirely on Trump and the work of the committee’s Gold Team, excluding reams of other investigative work.

Potentially left on the cutting room floor, or relegated to an appendix, were many revelations from the Blue Team — the group that dug into the law enforcement and intelligence community’s failure to assess the looming threat and prepare for the well-forecast attack on the Capitol. The proposed report would also cut back on much of the work of the Green Team, which looked at financing for the Jan. 6 attack, and the Purple Team, which examined militia groups and extremism.

“We all came from prestigious jobs, dropping what we were doing because we were told this would be an important fact-finding investigation that would inform the public,” said one former committee staffer. “But when [the committee] became a Cheney 2024 campaign, many of us became discouraged.”

Cheney spokesman Jeremy Adler issued a blistering statement Wednesday to The Washington Post in response to the criticisms.
“Donald Trump is the first president in American history to attempt to overturn an election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power,” Adler said. “So, damn right Liz is ‘prioritizing’ understanding what he did and how he did it and ensuring it never happens again.”
Adler added, “Some staff have submitted subpar material for the report that reflects long-held liberal biases about federal law enforcement, Republicans, and sociological issues outside the scope of the Select Committee’s work. She won’t sign onto any ‘narrative’ that suggests Republicans are inherently racist or smears men and women in law enforcement, or suggests every American who believes God has blessed America is a white supremacist.”

Tim Mulvey, the select committee’s spokesman, said in a separate statement that the panel’s “historic, bipartisan fact-finding effort speaks for itself, and that won’t be changed by a handful of disgruntled staff who are uninformed about many parts of the committee’s ongoing work.”
“They’ve forgotten their duties as public servants and their cowardice is helping Donald Trump and others responsible for the violence of January 6th,” Mulvey’s statement continued. “All nine committee members continue to review materials and make contributions to the draft report, which will address every key aspect of the committee’s investigation. Decisions about the contents of the report ultimately rest with the committee’s bipartisan membership, not the staff.”

The internal tensions over Cheney’s role also stand in contrast to the widespread public praise from many Democrats and even some Republicans, who have hailed her for standing up to Trump and defending democratic norms. Cheney, under siege by Trump and ostracized by the GOP, was defeated in the Wyoming primary this summer and will leave office in January.

Some staffers noted that the mission of the committee — as spelled out in the resolution authorizing its formation — was to discover what political forces and intelligence and security failures allowed the U.S. Capitol Police and its partners to be so overwhelmed and ill-prepared for the attack and to ensure that such an event could not happen again. Leaving any relevant information out of the final report would ignore important lessons for the future and issues that will outlive Trump, they argued.

But in the wake of an NBC News story earlier this month that the final report would not include much of the panel’s work not directly related to Trump, lawmakers on the committee are now reassessing what to include in the final draft and also eyeing different ways to publicly share more of the investigators’ work outside of the report. That could include sharing findings on the committee’s website or releasing internal transcripts.

A senior committee staffer told staff in a virtual conference meeting two weeks ago that none of the work done by people serving on teams other than the Gold Team that didn’t focus on Trump would be included in the final report.
“Everybody freaked out,” the staffer said.
The announcement, this staffer argued, was premature and based on negative reactions from lawmakers who concluded that draft chapters written by non-Gold investigative teams should not be included because they were either too long or too academic in nature. However, the staffer said, while committee members disliked those chapters, they were open to including some of that material in a more concise or streamlined form.

“It’s not a class project — everyone doesn’t get a participation prize,” said a senior Democratic aide. “The Green Team has chapters and chapters of good work, but the problem is they’ve learned a lot of great stuff about objectionable but completely legal things.”

Tensions among lawmakers on the committee are also high, with some members angry about information being shared with the press regarding internal discussions on what to include or exclude from the final report, according to people familiar with the mood on the committee. Some distrust has been sown between lawmakers and staff over the NBC News story, and some senior staff called complaints about Cheney from committee staff unprofessional — and said that ultimately, the members call the final shots.

“Ten years from now, most of us are going to think that the work of the committee has been the most important thing we’ve ever done in our careers, and I think it’s just very shortsighted to have these kinds of smaller, petty kind of complaints,” a senior committee staffer said.

People familiar with the committee’s work said Cheney has taken a far more hands-on role than Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), who is chairing the committee. She is said by multiple staffers to want the report to focus on Trump, and has pushed for the hearings to focus extensively on his conduct — and not what she views as other sideshows.

Two people familiar with the process argued that without Cheney’s guidance, the committee would not be on track to submit a cohesive final report by the end of the year. One of these people described some of the output from investigators as being “uneven.”

“They were headed for a worse version of the Mueller report, which nobody read — and Cheney knew that,” this person said.

Some staff vehemently objected to the characterization that some of the work product was weak or inconsistent, and countered that it’s long been clear that Cheney deprioritized findings that didn’t fit a specific narrative about Trump’s efforts to foment the insurrection.

Some of the disaffected staff have left in recent months, in part out of frustration that their work is not expected to get significant attention in the report, some of these people said. Cheney has been uninterested in such criticisms, reminding others that she is a member — and if other members have a problem with her work, they can approach her.

The Attack: Before, during and after the assault on the Capitol
In recent days, some staffers have started directly lobbying other panel members to include the full set of findings in the final report, according to people familiar with the discussions. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the panel, said over the weekend during an interview with “Face the Nation” that the public would have access to “all the evidence, for good or ill” within the next month.

“Trump lit the fuse on all of this, but he is kind of irrelevant now — it doesn’t matter if he runs for president. … Of course we want to stop Trump in any way possible, but we’ll still be facing these organized militia types or lone-wolf attackers in five to 10 years,” said one committee staffer. “I don’t think it’s good for the committee or democracy at large if this entire final report is the case against Trump.”

Frustration with Cheney’s perceived heavy hand has been building since the committee started putting together the public hearings. While many staffers credit Cheney for the unparalleled success of the bombshell set of presentations made by the panel over the summer, some grew exasperated by her tactics.

Several staffers recalled Cheney’s unpopular initial mandate that witnesses who appeared before the committee for an interview or deposition must review their transcripts in person, rather than online. Staffers griped that Cheney’s orders would be a strain on the relationships that investigators had developed with witnesses, many of whom would have to travel across the country to review their transcript.

Eventually, one of the lawyers who worked closely with Cheney conveyed to her that she was jeopardizing the staff’s goodwill and persuaded her to adjust the process. Other staff expressed irritation with Cheney’s last-minute decision-making, and being consistently left in the dark on major decisions until public announcements.

Some investigators were furious with the vice chair’s secrecy around former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s appearance before the panel in June, according to former and current staff. Some staffers complained that the appearance caused unforced errors — such as Hutchinson’s uncorroborated claim of a tussle between Trump and a Secret Service officer — because Cheney did not give staff the opportunity to thoroughly vet the line of questioning and structure of the hearing.

A senior staffer argued that Cheney and other members were properly secretive about Hutchinson’s upcoming testimony in late June, and rightly concerned about staff leaks that could both unintentionally put her in danger and prematurely reveal her testimony before she gave it on live television. If details about the account Hutchinson planned to give were leaked, the staffer said, “more rabid Trump supporters might try to hurt her” and, less importantly, the power of her live testimony would be muted.

Lofgren defended Cheney in a statement: “No member of the Committee has worked harder than Liz Cheney. Our bipartisan efforts have led to what some have called the most effective set of congressional hearings in modern history. The Committee intends to release the evidence we have acquired so no element of our work will go unreported.”

Drew Hammill, spokesman for Pelosi, said in a statement Wednesday that Pelosi thanked Thompson and Cheney, and said the committee had been “successful” and had “deepened the public’s understanding.”

With Republican control of the House coming in January, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and his staff are already preparing to conduct an examination of any evidence omitted from the final report that is more flattering or at least exculpatory about Trump’s actions leading up to the Jan. 6 assault, according to one Republican operative.

Lawyers familiar with witness testimony that was never aired said Jordan is preparing for the deep-dive he will lead as the likely chairman of the House Judiciary Committee as he seeks to portray the investigation as a political hit-job that focused on a predetermined narrative to “blame Trump,” and ignored other facts that conflicted with that storyline.

The committee is well aware that Republicans are eager to get their hands on whatever materials become available to them when the House GOP conference takes back the majority.

“I expect them to do a document dive and cherry pick from the documents,” said a staffer working on the final report. “I have 100 percent confidence they’re going to do that — I just don’t think it’s as exculpatory as they’re going to make it out to be.”

[Seacoaster(1)]

Interesting typical inside DC leak induced squabble between Liz Cheney & select comm staff members on the final report.
For non-subscribers, here's the WP report :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... committee/

Jan. 6 panel staffers angry at Cheney for focusing so much of report on Trump
15 former and current staffers expressed concern that important findings unrelated to Trump will not become available to the American public
By Jacqueline Alemany, Josh Dawsey and Carol D. Leonnig, November 23, 2022 at 4:40 p.m. EST

Since Rep. Liz Cheney accepted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s offer to serve as the vice chair of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the Wyoming Republican has exerted a remarkable level of control over much of the committee’s public and private work.

Now, less than six weeks before the conclusion of the committee’s work, Cheney’s influence over the committee’s final report has rankled many current and former committee staff. They are angered and disillusioned by Cheney’s push to focus the report primarily on former president Donald Trump, and have bristled at the committee morphing into what they have come to view as the vehicle for the outgoing Wyoming lawmaker’s political future.

Fifteen former and current staffers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, expressed concerns that important findings unrelated to Trump will not become available to the American public.

The feuding brings to the fore a level of public acrimony within the Jan. 6 committee that previously had largely played out behind the scenes, as public attention was focused on a series of blockbuster public hearings focused on Trump’s role fomenting the attack.

Several committee staff members were floored earlier this month when they were told that a draft report would focus almost entirely on Trump and the work of the committee’s Gold Team, excluding reams of other investigative work.

Potentially left on the cutting room floor, or relegated to an appendix, were many revelations from the Blue Team — the group that dug into the law enforcement and intelligence community’s failure to assess the looming threat and prepare for the well-forecast attack on the Capitol. The proposed report would also cut back on much of the work of the Green Team, which looked at financing for the Jan. 6 attack, and the Purple Team, which examined militia groups and extremism.

“We all came from prestigious jobs, dropping what we were doing because we were told this would be an important fact-finding investigation that would inform the public,” said one former committee staffer. “But when [the committee] became a Cheney 2024 campaign, many of us became discouraged.”

Cheney spokesman Jeremy Adler issued a blistering statement Wednesday to The Washington Post in response to the criticisms.
“Donald Trump is the first president in American history to attempt to overturn an election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power,” Adler said. “So, damn right Liz is ‘prioritizing’ understanding what he did and how he did it and ensuring it never happens again.”
Adler added, “Some staff have submitted subpar material for the report that reflects long-held liberal biases about federal law enforcement, Republicans, and sociological issues outside the scope of the Select Committee’s work. She won’t sign onto any ‘narrative’ that suggests Republicans are inherently racist or smears men and women in law enforcement, or suggests every American who believes God has blessed America is a white supremacist.”

Tim Mulvey, the select committee’s spokesman, said in a separate statement that the panel’s “historic, bipartisan fact-finding effort speaks for itself, and that won’t be changed by a handful of disgruntled staff who are uninformed about many parts of the committee’s ongoing work.”
“They’ve forgotten their duties as public servants and their cowardice is helping Donald Trump and others responsible for the violence of January 6th,” Mulvey’s statement continued. “All nine committee members continue to review materials and make contributions to the draft report, which will address every key aspect of the committee’s investigation. Decisions about the contents of the report ultimately rest with the committee’s bipartisan membership, not the staff.”

The internal tensions over Cheney’s role also stand in contrast to the widespread public praise from many Democrats and even some Republicans, who have hailed her for standing up to Trump and defending democratic norms. Cheney, under siege by Trump and ostracized by the GOP, was defeated in the Wyoming primary this summer and will leave office in January.

Some staffers noted that the mission of the committee — as spelled out in the resolution authorizing its formation — was to discover what political forces and intelligence and security failures allowed the U.S. Capitol Police and its partners to be so overwhelmed and ill-prepared for the attack and to ensure that such an event could not happen again. Leaving any relevant information out of the final report would ignore important lessons for the future and issues that will outlive Trump, they argued.

But in the wake of an NBC News story earlier this month that the final report would not include much of the panel’s work not directly related to Trump, lawmakers on the committee are now reassessing what to include in the final draft and also eyeing different ways to publicly share more of the investigators’ work outside of the report. That could include sharing findings on the committee’s website or releasing internal transcripts.

A senior committee staffer told staff in a virtual conference meeting two weeks ago that none of the work done by people serving on teams other than the Gold Team that didn’t focus on Trump would be included in the final report.
“Everybody freaked out,” the staffer said.
The announcement, this staffer argued, was premature and based on negative reactions from lawmakers who concluded that draft chapters written by non-Gold investigative teams should not be included because they were either too long or too academic in nature. However, the staffer said, while committee members disliked those chapters, they were open to including some of that material in a more concise or streamlined form.

“It’s not a class project — everyone doesn’t get a participation prize,” said a senior Democratic aide. “The Green Team has chapters and chapters of good work, but the problem is they’ve learned a lot of great stuff about objectionable but completely legal things.”

Tensions among lawmakers on the committee are also high, with some members angry about information being shared with the press regarding internal discussions on what to include or exclude from the final report, according to people familiar with the mood on the committee. Some distrust has been sown between lawmakers and staff over the NBC News story, and some senior staff called complaints about Cheney from committee staff unprofessional — and said that ultimately, the members call the final shots.

“Ten years from now, most of us are going to think that the work of the committee has been the most important thing we’ve ever done in our careers, and I think it’s just very shortsighted to have these kinds of smaller, petty kind of complaints,” a senior committee staffer said.

People familiar with the committee’s work said Cheney has taken a far more hands-on role than Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), who is chairing the committee. She is said by multiple staffers to want the report to focus on Trump, and has pushed for the hearings to focus extensively on his conduct — and not what she views as other sideshows.

Two people familiar with the process argued that without Cheney’s guidance, the committee would not be on track to submit a cohesive final report by the end of the year. One of these people described some of the output from investigators as being “uneven.”

“They were headed for a worse version of the Mueller report, which nobody read — and Cheney knew that,” this person said.

Some staff vehemently objected to the characterization that some of the work product was weak or inconsistent, and countered that it’s long been clear that Cheney deprioritized findings that didn’t fit a specific narrative about Trump’s efforts to foment the insurrection.

Some of the disaffected staff have left in recent months, in part out of frustration that their work is not expected to get significant attention in the report, some of these people said. Cheney has been uninterested in such criticisms, reminding others that she is a member — and if other members have a problem with her work, they can approach her.

The Attack: Before, during and after the assault on the Capitol
In recent days, some staffers have started directly lobbying other panel members to include the full set of findings in the final report, according to people familiar with the discussions. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the panel, said over the weekend during an interview with “Face the Nation” that the public would have access to “all the evidence, for good or ill” within the next month.

“Trump lit the fuse on all of this, but he is kind of irrelevant now — it doesn’t matter if he runs for president. … Of course we want to stop Trump in any way possible, but we’ll still be facing these organized militia types or lone-wolf attackers in five to 10 years,” said one committee staffer. “I don’t think it’s good for the committee or democracy at large if this entire final report is the case against Trump.”

Frustration with Cheney’s perceived heavy hand has been building since the committee started putting together the public hearings. While many staffers credit Cheney for the unparalleled success of the bombshell set of presentations made by the panel over the summer, some grew exasperated by her tactics.

Several staffers recalled Cheney’s unpopular initial mandate that witnesses who appeared before the committee for an interview or deposition must review their transcripts in person, rather than online. Staffers griped that Cheney’s orders would be a strain on the relationships that investigators had developed with witnesses, many of whom would have to travel across the country to review their transcript.

Eventually, one of the lawyers who worked closely with Cheney conveyed to her that she was jeopardizing the staff’s goodwill and persuaded her to adjust the process. Other staff expressed irritation with Cheney’s last-minute decision-making, and being consistently left in the dark on major decisions until public announcements.

Some investigators were furious with the vice chair’s secrecy around former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s appearance before the panel in June, according to former and current staff. Some staffers complained that the appearance caused unforced errors — such as Hutchinson’s uncorroborated claim of a tussle between Trump and a Secret Service officer — because Cheney did not give staff the opportunity to thoroughly vet the line of questioning and structure of the hearing.

A senior staffer argued that Cheney and other members were properly secretive about Hutchinson’s upcoming testimony in late June, and rightly concerned about staff leaks that could both unintentionally put her in danger and prematurely reveal her testimony before she gave it on live television. If details about the account Hutchinson planned to give were leaked, the staffer said, “more rabid Trump supporters might try to hurt her” and, less importantly, the power of her live testimony would be muted.

Lofgren defended Cheney in a statement: “No member of the Committee has worked harder than Liz Cheney. Our bipartisan efforts have led to what some have called the most effective set of congressional hearings in modern history. The Committee intends to release the evidence we have acquired so no element of our work will go unreported.”

Drew Hammill, spokesman for Pelosi, said in a statement Wednesday that Pelosi thanked Thompson and Cheney, and said the committee had been “successful” and had “deepened the public’s understanding.”

With Republican control of the House coming in January, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and his staff are already preparing to conduct an examination of any evidence omitted from the final report that is more flattering or at least exculpatory about Trump’s actions leading up to the Jan. 6 assault, according to one Republican operative.

Lawyers familiar with witness testimony that was never aired said Jordan is preparing for the deep-dive he will lead as the likely chairman of the House Judiciary Committee as he seeks to portray the investigation as a political hit-job that focused on a predetermined narrative to “blame Trump,” and ignored other facts that conflicted with that storyline.

The committee is well aware that Republicans are eager to get their hands on whatever materials become available to them when the House GOP conference takes back the majority.

“I expect them to do a document dive and cherry pick from the documents,” said a staffer working on the final report. “I have 100 percent confidence they’re going to do that — I just don’t think it’s as exculpatory as they’re going to make it out to be.”

I read this a few days ago, and concluded it is sort of a non-story. The elected Representatives make the call on the focus and outcomes of the investigation, not staff. So it is with almost every organization, this one especially, no?

[Farfromgeneva]

Interesting typical inside DC leak induced squabble between Liz Cheney & select comm staff members on the final report.
For non-subscribers, here's the WP report :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... committee/

Jan. 6 panel staffers angry at Cheney for focusing so much of report on Trump
15 former and current staffers expressed concern that important findings unrelated to Trump will not become available to the American public
By Jacqueline Alemany, Josh Dawsey and Carol D. Leonnig, November 23, 2022 at 4:40 p.m. EST

Since Rep. Liz Cheney accepted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s offer to serve as the vice chair of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the Wyoming Republican has exerted a remarkable level of control over much of the committee’s public and private work.

Now, less than six weeks before the conclusion of the committee’s work, Cheney’s influence over the committee’s final report has rankled many current and former committee staff. They are angered and disillusioned by Cheney’s push to focus the report primarily on former president Donald Trump, and have bristled at the committee morphing into what they have come to view as the vehicle for the outgoing Wyoming lawmaker’s political future.

Fifteen former and current staffers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, expressed concerns that important findings unrelated to Trump will not become available to the American public.

The feuding brings to the fore a level of public acrimony within the Jan. 6 committee that previously had largely played out behind the scenes, as public attention was focused on a series of blockbuster public hearings focused on Trump’s role fomenting the attack.

Several committee staff members were floored earlier this month when they were told that a draft report would focus almost entirely on Trump and the work of the committee’s Gold Team, excluding reams of other investigative work.

Potentially left on the cutting room floor, or relegated to an appendix, were many revelations from the Blue Team — the group that dug into the law enforcement and intelligence community’s failure to assess the looming threat and prepare for the well-forecast attack on the Capitol. The proposed report would also cut back on much of the work of the Green Team, which looked at financing for the Jan. 6 attack, and the Purple Team, which examined militia groups and extremism.

“We all came from prestigious jobs, dropping what we were doing because we were told this would be an important fact-finding investigation that would inform the public,” said one former committee staffer. “But when [the committee] became a Cheney 2024 campaign, many of us became discouraged.”

Cheney spokesman Jeremy Adler issued a blistering statement Wednesday to The Washington Post in response to the criticisms.
“Donald Trump is the first president in American history to attempt to overturn an election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power,” Adler said. “So, damn right Liz is ‘prioritizing’ understanding what he did and how he did it and ensuring it never happens again.”
Adler added, “Some staff have submitted subpar material for the report that reflects long-held liberal biases about federal law enforcement, Republicans, and sociological issues outside the scope of the Select Committee’s work. She won’t sign onto any ‘narrative’ that suggests Republicans are inherently racist or smears men and women in law enforcement, or suggests every American who believes God has blessed America is a white supremacist.”

Tim Mulvey, the select committee’s spokesman, said in a separate statement that the panel’s “historic, bipartisan fact-finding effort speaks for itself, and that won’t be changed by a handful of disgruntled staff who are uninformed about many parts of the committee’s ongoing work.”
“They’ve forgotten their duties as public servants and their cowardice is helping Donald Trump and others responsible for the violence of January 6th,” Mulvey’s statement continued. “All nine committee members continue to review materials and make contributions to the draft report, which will address every key aspect of the committee’s investigation. Decisions about the contents of the report ultimately rest with the committee’s bipartisan membership, not the staff.”

The internal tensions over Cheney’s role also stand in contrast to the widespread public praise from many Democrats and even some Republicans, who have hailed her for standing up to Trump and defending democratic norms. Cheney, under siege by Trump and ostracized by the GOP, was defeated in the Wyoming primary this summer and will leave office in January.

Some staffers noted that the mission of the committee — as spelled out in the resolution authorizing its formation — was to discover what political forces and intelligence and security failures allowed the U.S. Capitol Police and its partners to be so overwhelmed and ill-prepared for the attack and to ensure that such an event could not happen again. Leaving any relevant information out of the final report would ignore important lessons for the future and issues that will outlive Trump, they argued.

But in the wake of an NBC News story earlier this month that the final report would not include much of the panel’s work not directly related to Trump, lawmakers on the committee are now reassessing what to include in the final draft and also eyeing different ways to publicly share more of the investigators’ work outside of the report. That could include sharing findings on the committee’s website or releasing internal transcripts.

A senior committee staffer told staff in a virtual conference meeting two weeks ago that none of the work done by people serving on teams other than the Gold Team that didn’t focus on Trump would be included in the final report.
“Everybody freaked out,” the staffer said.
The announcement, this staffer argued, was premature and based on negative reactions from lawmakers who concluded that draft chapters written by non-Gold investigative teams should not be included because they were either too long or too academic in nature. However, the staffer said, while committee members disliked those chapters, they were open to including some of that material in a more concise or streamlined form.

“It’s not a class project — everyone doesn’t get a participation prize,” said a senior Democratic aide. “The Green Team has chapters and chapters of good work, but the problem is they’ve learned a lot of great stuff about objectionable but completely legal things.”

Tensions among lawmakers on the committee are also high, with some members angry about information being shared with the press regarding internal discussions on what to include or exclude from the final report, according to people familiar with the mood on the committee. Some distrust has been sown between lawmakers and staff over the NBC News story, and some senior staff called complaints about Cheney from committee staff unprofessional — and said that ultimately, the members call the final shots.

“Ten years from now, most of us are going to think that the work of the committee has been the most important thing we’ve ever done in our careers, and I think it’s just very shortsighted to have these kinds of smaller, petty kind of complaints,” a senior committee staffer said.

People familiar with the committee’s work said Cheney has taken a far more hands-on role than Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), who is chairing the committee. She is said by multiple staffers to want the report to focus on Trump, and has pushed for the hearings to focus extensively on his conduct — and not what she views as other sideshows.

Two people familiar with the process argued that without Cheney’s guidance, the committee would not be on track to submit a cohesive final report by the end of the year. One of these people described some of the output from investigators as being “uneven.”

“They were headed for a worse version of the Mueller report, which nobody read — and Cheney knew that,” this person said.

Some staff vehemently objected to the characterization that some of the work product was weak or inconsistent, and countered that it’s long been clear that Cheney deprioritized findings that didn’t fit a specific narrative about Trump’s efforts to foment the insurrection.

Some of the disaffected staff have left in recent months, in part out of frustration that their work is not expected to get significant attention in the report, some of these people said. Cheney has been uninterested in such criticisms, reminding others that she is a member — and if other members have a problem with her work, they can approach her.

The Attack: Before, during and after the assault on the Capitol
In recent days, some staffers have started directly lobbying other panel members to include the full set of findings in the final report, according to people familiar with the discussions. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the panel, said over the weekend during an interview with “Face the Nation” that the public would have access to “all the evidence, for good or ill” within the next month.

“Trump lit the fuse on all of this, but he is kind of irrelevant now — it doesn’t matter if he runs for president. … Of course we want to stop Trump in any way possible, but we’ll still be facing these organized militia types or lone-wolf attackers in five to 10 years,” said one committee staffer. “I don’t think it’s good for the committee or democracy at large if this entire final report is the case against Trump.”

Frustration with Cheney’s perceived heavy hand has been building since the committee started putting together the public hearings. While many staffers credit Cheney for the unparalleled success of the bombshell set of presentations made by the panel over the summer, some grew exasperated by her tactics.

Several staffers recalled Cheney’s unpopular initial mandate that witnesses who appeared before the committee for an interview or deposition must review their transcripts in person, rather than online. Staffers griped that Cheney’s orders would be a strain on the relationships that investigators had developed with witnesses, many of whom would have to travel across the country to review their transcript.

Eventually, one of the lawyers who worked closely with Cheney conveyed to her that she was jeopardizing the staff’s goodwill and persuaded her to adjust the process. Other staff expressed irritation with Cheney’s last-minute decision-making, and being consistently left in the dark on major decisions until public announcements.

Some investigators were furious with the vice chair’s secrecy around former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s appearance before the panel in June, according to former and current staff. Some staffers complained that the appearance caused unforced errors — such as Hutchinson’s uncorroborated claim of a tussle between Trump and a Secret Service officer — because Cheney did not give staff the opportunity to thoroughly vet the line of questioning and structure of the hearing.

A senior staffer argued that Cheney and other members were properly secretive about Hutchinson’s upcoming testimony in late June, and rightly concerned about staff leaks that could both unintentionally put her in danger and prematurely reveal her testimony before she gave it on live television. If details about the account Hutchinson planned to give were leaked, the staffer said, “more rabid Trump supporters might try to hurt her” and, less importantly, the power of her live testimony would be muted.

Lofgren defended Cheney in a statement: “No member of the Committee has worked harder than Liz Cheney. Our bipartisan efforts have led to what some have called the most effective set of congressional hearings in modern history. The Committee intends to release the evidence we have acquired so no element of our work will go unreported.”

Drew Hammill, spokesman for Pelosi, said in a statement Wednesday that Pelosi thanked Thompson and Cheney, and said the committee had been “successful” and had “deepened the public’s understanding.”

With Republican control of the House coming in January, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and his staff are already preparing to conduct an examination of any evidence omitted from the final report that is more flattering or at least exculpatory about Trump’s actions leading up to the Jan. 6 assault, according to one Republican operative.

Lawyers familiar with witness testimony that was never aired said Jordan is preparing for the deep-dive he will lead as the likely chairman of the House Judiciary Committee as he seeks to portray the investigation as a political hit-job that focused on a predetermined narrative to “blame Trump,” and ignored other facts that conflicted with that storyline.

The committee is well aware that Republicans are eager to get their hands on whatever materials become available to them when the House GOP conference takes back the majority.

“I expect them to do a document dive and cherry pick from the documents,” said a staffer working on the final report. “I have 100 percent confidence they’re going to do that — I just don’t think it’s as exculpatory as they’re going to make it out to be.”

I read this a few days ago, and concluded it is sort of a non-story. The elected Representatives make the call on the focus and outcomes of the investigation, not staff. So it is with almost every organization, this one especially, no?

Same - was in WSJ as well last week at some point. And having lived in DC proper for a stretch it's consistent with the over inudlgence of staffers and their self importance.

[old salt]

I wonder what the objecting staffers see as Liz Cheney's potential path to the Presidency.
There is no way she can win the (R) nomination.
If she runs as a 3rd party candidate, she'd assure a (D) victory.
There's no way she could become a (D) & win the nomination.
She's destined to be an increasingly irrelevant outsider, unless/until the GOP implodes & reconstitutes.

[MDlaxfan76]

I wonder what the objecting staffers see as Liz Cheney's potential path to the Presidency.
There is no way she can win the (R) nomination.
If she runs as a 3rd party candidate, she'd assure a (D) victory.
There's no way she could become a (D) & win the nomination.
She's destined to be an increasingly irrelevant outsider, unless/until the GOP implodes & reconstitutes.

What makes you think that the objecting/leaking staffers have even a scintilla of concern about Cheney becoming President???

Seems to me they want the report to be more of an indictment on the GOP altogether and less specifically about Trump and his acolytes, but that's not out of concern about Cheney.

For instance, they apparently want to highlight the white nationalism and 'christian nationalism' rampant in the support for Jan 6 and the whitewashing of the transgressions...they see this as endemic to the GOP now (I agree) and want to make that as or more important than the particular vessel (Trump). These are quite likely Dem staffers...and they want to be clear that it's the movement that needs to be called out, not just the a-hole traitor who has been its focal point.

It's a debatable position as to what to emphasize, but they're staffers and the Members have the say, with Cheney rightfully immensely influential. and her views appear to have the other Members' support, by and large.

[Kismet]

I wonder what the objecting staffers see as Liz Cheney's potential path to the Presidency.
There is no way she can win the (R) nomination.
If she runs as a 3rd party candidate, she'd assure a (D) victory.
There's no way she could become a (D) & win the nomination.
She's destined to be an increasingly irrelevant outsider, unless/until the GOP implodes & reconstitutes.

Their opinion is irrelevant to what the committee does. The committee members (majority Democrats BTW) approve the final report, not the staff. She is one of those members and she only has one vote despite being the Vice Chair.

[MDlaxfan76]

I wonder what the objecting staffers see as Liz Cheney's potential path to the Presidency.
There is no way she can win the (R) nomination.
If she runs as a 3rd party candidate, she'd assure a (D) victory.
There's no way she could become a (D) & win the nomination.
She's destined to be an increasingly irrelevant outsider, unless/until the GOP implodes & reconstitutes.

Their opinion is irrelevant to what the committee does. The committee members (majority Democrats BTW) approve the final report, not the staff. She is one of those members and she only has one vote despite being the Vice Chair.

While that's obviously accurate, it's clear that Cheney and Kinzinger's participation has immensely helped the credibility of the effort as not partisan by party. Coupled with the emphasis on using the testimony of nearly only Republicans to make the case that this was an incredibly egregious break of faith led by this rogue a-hole, they have created an impressive record for history while enabling moderate or non-Trump cult R's, independents, as well as Dems believe their effort was fair.

So having Liz and Adam fully on board with the final report matters to the other Members.
Certainly more than what some likely more partisan staffers might think.