Ladies and Gentlemen, brace yourselves for a tale, not of democracy in action but of Hollywood’s most audacious script yet: the January 6th Committee, a production so contrived it makes reality TV look like a documentary on quantum physics.
Let’s start with the director of this farce, a former ABC News president, James Goldston. Yes, you heard that right, a Hollywood producer, not a historian or a constitutional scholar, but a man who knows how to spin a narrative, was chosen to steer this supposed investigation. Here, the line between fact and fiction blurs more than in a sci-fi blockbuster.
James Goldston served as the head of ABC News from 2014 to 2021. Originally from the United Kingdom, his journalism career kicked off at BBC News. He moved to ABC News in 2004, initially taking on the role of senior producer for primetime specials and investigative pieces. His career progressed rapidly, leading him to become the executive producer of “Nightline” in 2011. Before his ascent to president, Goldston also served as the senior executive producer for “Good Morning America” and was the senior vice president for content and development at ABC News.
The Story: Democrats wanted the Jan. 6 hearings to be a blockbuster. So they hired a storyteller.
After spending the better part of a year investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, the group of senators comprising the House Select Committee knew that conveying the seriousness of the plot would mean packaging it up as the Watergate hearings for the Netflix generation.
The solution they arrived at almost seems obvious in retrospect: if you want to create a blockbuster, hire a blockbuster merchant. Which is how James Goldston, a one-time journalist and former president of ABC News, came to work with the committee, turning a format that usually lends itself to being dry and ponderous into something more akin to a six-episode prestige docudrama.
The key to Goldston’s success may be his adherence to one of the oldest storytelling rules in the book: show, don’t tell. The House Committee could have simply told viewers that the insurrection was violent and laid out the ways in which it posed a threat to the country’s stability. But that wouldn’t have been as powerful as letting the events speak for themselves.
And so, viewers were treated to tightly edited footage of rioters smashing windows and first-hand testimony that worked to place the audience in the shoes of the people on the ground. When, during the first hearing, police officer Caroline Edwards began recounting events from her perspective, the power of emotion over facts was made clear. “I was slipping in people’s blood,” she said. “I was catching people as they fell. It was carnage. It was chaos.”
This committee, which was supposed to be the beacon of truth, became nothing more than a political puppet show, with Goldston pulling the strings. What was the brief? Was it to uncover the truth? No, no, no. The brief was to frame Donald Trump and his supporters in the most villainous light possible, turning the Capitol riot into a melodrama where the good and the evil were as clear as day and night – or as clear as a Hollywood script dictates.
The January 6th Committee’s sessions were far from traditional hearings; they were more akin to episodes of a gripping television series. Each session was meticulously orchestrated to maximize emotional impact, employing techniques straight out of Hollywood’s playbook to build suspense, evoke sympathy, or incite indignation.
The use of agitprop in this context involved several strategic elements:
Video Editing: Footage was not presented in its raw form but was instead edited with the precision of a blockbuster movie. Key moments were selected, sequences were cut together to convey a specific narrative, and dramatic music might as well have been added for all the emotional manipulation that occurred. The editing process ensured that only the clips supporting the committee’s narrative were shown, sidelining any footage that might offer a counter-narrative or context.
Witness Selection: Witnesses were not just participants but were essentially cast for their roles. Those chosen were often individuals whose testimonies would align perfectly with the desired storyline. This selection was less about truth-finding and more about storytelling, where each witness’s appearance was timed to coincide with the narrative’s climax or to introduce a new “plot twist.”
Scripted Questions: The questions posed to these witnesses were not spontaneous inquiries but were prepped like lines in a script. This approach ensured that responses would fit neatly into the pre-determined narrative arc. The committee members, acting more like actors, knew their cues and delivered questions designed to elicit the most dramatic or condemning responses, effectively steering the testimony in the direction of their political agenda.
Narrative Control: The overarching strategy was to control the narrative entirely. By framing each session as an episode in a series, the committee could control the pacing, the emotional tone, and the storyline. They aimed to make the public feel anger, fear, or sympathy at precise moments, much like a director manipulates an audience’s emotions in a film.
Public Perception: The agitprop here was not just about presenting facts but about shaping public perception. By crafting each session with these techniques, the hearings were transformed into a tool of political propaganda, where the primary goal was not to investigate but to influence public opinion in a very one-sided, theatrical manner.
This manipulation of traditional investigative processes into a form of political theater was agitprop at its most sophisticated, or perhaps its most insidious, highlighting not an inquiry into truth but an attempt to dictate it through narrative control.
Selective Blindness: January 6th Committee Skips Over Key Security and Data Evidence
The so-called “investigation” by the January 6th Committee was less about a thorough exploration of the facts and more about crafting a narrative that served a political purpose. They had already cast Donald Trump as the antagonist; the task was then to tailor the evidence to match this role.
One of the most glaring oversights was the committee’s failure to delve deeply into the security failures that allowed the Capitol breach to occur. Here are several areas where the committee’s investigation notably fell short:
Pipe Bomb Evidence: On January 6, pipe bombs were found near the headquarters of both the Republican and Democratic National Committees. A number of observers have speculated that these bombs might have been an “inside job,” intended as a diversion and not anticipating the chaos at the Capitol. However, the committee largely sidestepped this investigation, avoiding critical questions about how these bombs were placed, who might have been involved, and the reasons for the significant delay in response—elements that could have dramatically altered the course of the day’s events. Recent video evidence has emerged showing the surprisingly low-key and casual discovery of the bomb at the Democratic headquarters, where Kamala Harris was located at the time, raising further questions about the handling and awareness of the situation.
Security Preparations:
Despite explicit warnings from multiple intelligence agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, about the potential for violence on January 6, the January 6th Committee barely scratched the surface of the glaring security lapses. The committee did not delve into why the Capitol Police, responsible for the security of the Capitol complex, were so woefully underprepared for the day’s events. There was a notable absence of scrutiny regarding the deployment of resources, the response time to escalating situations, and the overall security strategy.
Moreover, the investigation failed to thoroughly examine the roles played by key figures in the security chain of command. The Capitol Police Board, which has oversight over security measures and should have been proactive in response preparations, was not rigorously questioned about their decisions or lack thereof. Similarly, the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms, who are directly responsible for the security of their respective chambers, were not fully held to account for the evident breakdown in security planning and execution. This includes not addressing the refusal of National Guard assistance until the situation had escalated beyond control, the absence of sufficient barricades, and the lack of a coordinated response plan among various law enforcement agencies present.
This oversight in the investigation raises significant questions about the depth and intent of the committee’s work, suggesting a focus more on political narrative than on understanding and preventing future security breaches.
Deleted Data: There have been serious allegations that the January 6th Committee itself might have deleted or failed to preserve significant amounts of digital evidence related to the events of January 6, 2021. This included over a terabyte of data, encompassing communications, emails, text messages, and video footage that could have offered a more detailed and comprehensive narrative of the day’s events. The missing evidence reportedly included crucial communications between security personnel, politicians, and key decision-makers, which would have been vital for understanding the sequence of events, response times, and the effectiveness of the security measures in place.
In response to these allegations, a current Congressional investigation is actively seeking answers about what happened to this destroyed or lost evidence. Led by Representative Barry Loudermilk of Georgia, this investigation is examining claims that over 117 encrypted files and other pieces of evidence, including video testimony from Secret Service agent Robert Engel, were either deleted or not adequately preserved. This probe is now focusing on why these files were not handed over to the National Archives as required by law, whether they were intentionally destroyed, and if so, who might be responsible. The investigation also aims to ascertain if the destruction or loss of this evidence was to obscure certain aspects of the January 6 events or if it was a result of oversight or procedural failures by the previous committee.
The implications of this investigation are significant, as the lost evidence could have either exonerated or incriminated various parties involved, potentially altering the public’s and legal system’s understanding of the January 6th Capitol breach. This inquiry into the handling of evidence by the former committee is part of a broader effort to restore transparency and accountability in how one of the most significant security breaches in U.S. history is documented and analyzed.
Witness Testimonies: The January 6th Committee faced significant criticism for its selective choice of witnesses, focusing predominantly on those whose testimonies aligned with their narrative. While some key figures were given extensive airtime, several other witnesses with potentially crucial insights into the day’s events were either not invited to testify publicly or their testimonies were downplayed or omitted:
Secret Service Agent Robert Engel: His testimony could have offered a differing account, particularly regarding the events in the presidential vehicle on January 6. Engel was reportedly in the car with President Trump and could have provided a firsthand account of the president’s actions and demands that day, potentially contradicting or clarifying the testimony of other witnesses like Cassidy Hutchinson. However, his testimony was not made public, leading to speculation about its content and its alignment with the committee’s narrative.
Capitol Police Officers: There were numerous officers, like Sergeant Aquilino Gonell and Officer Harry Dunn, who publicly testified, but others who might have presented a less sensational or more nuanced view of the security breakdown were sidelined. For instance, officers who might have spoken to the initial peaceful nature of the crowd, the communications failures, or the decision-making process regarding reinforcements were notably absent from the public hearings.
Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund: Sund has claimed that he was not adequately interviewed by the committee regarding the security failures on January 6. His perspective could have been vital in understanding why there was such a delay in response and why the Capitol was so vulnerable, including his requests for National Guard assistance which were allegedly denied by higher-ups.
Other Law Enforcement: Members of the Metropolitan Police Department and other law enforcement agencies involved in the response were not given a platform to discuss their experiences or the coordination (or lack thereof) between different forces. This includes insights into the intelligence sharing or the communication breakdown that led to the initial underestimation of the threat.
Security Planners and Advisors: Individuals involved in the planning and advice for security on that day, from both within and outside the Capitol Police structure, were not highlighted. This includes personnel from various intelligence agencies who had warned about potential violence but whose warnings were seemingly ignored in the planning stages.
By not giving these witnesses an opportunity for public testimony, the committee’s investigation was perceived as one-sided, focusing more on a predetermined narrative rather than a comprehensive examination of the day’s events. This selective approach to witness testimony contributed to the critique that the committee was more interested in political theater than in uncovering the full truth about the security failures on January 6.
Video Footage: The committee was accused of editing video footage to present a specific narrative. Over 200 hours of video were available, but only select clips were used, often out of context, to emphasize Trump’s role without exploring the broader context of the crowd’s behavior or the initial peaceful nature of the assembly.
In essence, the committee’s focus was more on painting a picture that reinforced pre-existing political biases rather than providing a balanced, comprehensive look at the events, including the critical security lapses that enabled the chaos of that day. This selective approach to evidence and investigation points to an agenda-driven process rather than an objective inquiry into one of the most significant breaches of security in U.S. history.
And let’s not forget the choreography of it all. Each soundbite, and every piece of evidence presented, was for maximum dramatic effect. The committee didn’t just want to inform; they wanted to incite, to manipulate the audience into seeing only one side of a very complex event. Where was the scrutiny, the cross-examination of motives, the acknowledgment of the complexities of that day? Absent, all in the name of a good story.
The real tragedy here isn’t just the manipulation of public perception; it’s the squandering of an opportunity to genuinely understand and prevent future threats to our democracy. Instead, we got a Hollywood production, complete with its own set of heroes and villains, scripted to perfection for political gain.
In the end, what did we learn? That political theater can be staged with the finesse of a Broadway show, that facts can be bent like the light in a lens flare, and that the pursuit of truth can be as easily discarded as a bad script reading. The January 6th Committee, under the guise of investigation, became the epitome of agitprop, a term once reserved for Soviet propaganda, now fittingly describing a committee that chose drama over democracy.
So, dear reader, remember this when you think of the January 6th Committee – not as the guardians of truth, but as the latest in a long line of political productions, where the truth is not just bent but broken, all for the sake of a narrative that was written before the curtain even went up.