Opinion piece but interesting insight.
The real reason Jim Jordan is ranting against Jan. 6 committee staff
Rep.
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) just had
a very telling little meltdown on Fox News’s “The Ingraham Angle,” ranting against the make-up of the House Jan. 6 select committee staff. His big concern? The committee has brought in too many former prosecutors. This is not a criminal investigation, he says.
Jordan’s criticism is both irrelevant and ignorant; perhaps, more generously, he’s playing provocateur.
The committee has
staffed up with 14 or so ex-prosecutors because: a) the task is vast; b) they have the resources to hire well-trained lawyers who have handled complex federal cases; and c) typical congressional staffers just can’t handle such a colossal undertaking. In other words, Jordan and other Trump World lackeys are facing their worst possible nightmare in the mother of all congressional investigations.
Jordan’s rant comes after
his infamous, tongue-tied ‘hummina, hummina’ moment when an Ohio reporter asked him on camera if he had spoken to the president on Jan. 6 “before, during or after the attack on the Capitol.” Jordan’s squirming response suggested that he was afraid the reporter was going to pin him down
where Jordan didn’t want to be pinned.
It also comes after
a “Just Security” report from last August detailed just how central a role Jordan played in aiding and abetting Trump’s misinformation campaign before and after the election, his lead role in spreading Trump’s “Big Lie,” and his furtive efforts to stop the certification of
Joe Biden as president.
In addition to hiring investigators, these select committees always brought in outside legal talent, usually on loan from major law firms. Michael Chertoff was brought in by Chairman Alphonse D’Amato (R-N.Y.) for the Whitewater investigation; Chairman John F. Kerry (D-Mass) of the Senate POW/MIA committee brought in Boston lawyer Bill Codinha, and so on. They brought in other attorneys as well.
But not 14 of them.
That helps explain why defense attorney and well-respected former House general counsel Stanley Brand
told the New York Times about the Jan. 6 select committee: “Having lived through and being a part of every major congressional investigation of the past 50 years from Iran-contra to Whitewater to everything else, this is the mother of all investigations and a quantum leap for Congress in a way I’ve never seen before.”
Even though I was a Senate investigator, I often consulted with Brand because he was a more effective legal advisor than his Senate legal counterpart. This man knows what he’s talking about when it comes to congressional investigations.
However, 14 former prosecutors on the Jan. 6 committee won’t ensure a successful outcome. That would come only by effectively marshaling the evidence and orchestrating it in a persuasive way in public hearings.
It is surprising how often outside lawyers can turn a public hearing into a snooze-fest for anyone watching: They focus too much on minutia instead of crafting a compelling storyline — much like a movie, complete with victims, good guys and bad guys, with a moral to the story.
Adding to the pressure are the Senate Republicans, who
have pushed back against the recent Republican National Committee attack on GOP House members
Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and
Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), vocal critics of former
President Trump, for their participation on the committee. That resistance and Senate Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) apparent
defense of the committee’s core mission constitute additional bipartisan credibility for the committee.
In recent weeks,
details have emerged about what happened leading up to and on Jan. 6. Many are surprised at how clear the picture is becoming. I’m sure that hasn’t been lost on Rep. Jordan and other likely culprits in Trump World.
If Jordan was worried a local reporter might pin him down, wait till he gets 14 former prosecutors on his case.
thehill.com