Secretary of Defense Chris Miller
Former acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller claimed the January 6th committee threatened to “make his life hell” if he continued publicly stating that President Trump had authorized deploying the National Guard to the Capitol on January 6th, contradicting the committee’s narrative.
Members warned him
Miller said committee members warned him of further hostile questioning if he repeated this account.
Jan. 6 staff director
“The two of us were on [Fox News] and the next day my lawyer got a call from the Jan. 6 staff director — I forgot exactly who it was — but basically saying, very legalistic: ‘Well, if your client has additional information he wants to share, we’d be happy to have him re-interviewed,”’ Miller said.
Discredit opposing views
His statements echoed other witnesses who said the partisan committee aimed to discredit opposing views rather than investigate facts.n“That piece Kash and I did, it hit a nerve,” Miller said. “It was like, ‘[expletive], that sure got some attention.’”
Intimidated witnesses
The committee reportedly pressured and intimidated witnesses, treating testimony contradicting its preconceived conclusions as a “threat.”
Latent threat
“It was more that latent threat of: ‘If you want to keep going on TV, we’re gonna drag you in here again for additional hours of hearing testimony.’ So that was the nature of that whole thing,” he said.
Continuing to intrude
“It was the latent threat of the government continuing to intrude into my life,” he said.
Worth noting
Now, it’s worth noting that his statements on “Hannity” seemed to be at odds with the sworn testimony he gave before the committee, according to the U.K.’s Independent; when asked about deployment of the National Guard, he said, “I was never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature.”
Overthrow the Capitol building
“People thought they were friendly to law enforcement and that they loved their country,” D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said. “People didn’t think that these white nationalists would overthrow the Capitol building.”
Raised concerns
While the committee raised concerns about January 6th, its tactics cast doubt on the objectivity and reliability of its findings.
Didn’t talk about it
“I didn’t talk about it with anybody else because of the fear or the concern,” Miller said. “I wasn’t communicating with anybody, because I knew any interactions I had on it would result in me having to … acknowledge that I’d been in communications with other people. And then that just sort of opens up a whole can of worms with the investigators that I just didn’t want to do.”
Much easier
“It was much easier just to not be involved with anybody or talk to anybody about this stuff because it was going to cause conflict and difficulties with the investigating team,” he said. “So I didn’t talk to other people, quite simply.”
Serious threat
“I’m sure that Cheney was looking at the optics and was like, ‘these people are a serious threat to my narrative’ that she tried to establish,” Miller said.
Nuance and complexity
“Now, you know, they’ll say, ‘No, that wasn’t it at all. We just wanted to make sure that we understood all the nuance and complexity.’ But I definitely interpreted it as … don’t fight city hall type thing.”
Comprehensive investigation
The January 6th Committee’s comprehensive investigation into the events surrounding the attack on the US Capitol reignited intense political and public discourse. The committee’s scrutiny of the circumstances leading up to, during, and after the insurrection has drawn attention to the actions and intentions of key individuals.
Trump’s alleged misconduct
The committee’s report highlights a series of findings that underscore its focus on Trump’s alleged misconduct and role in the events of January 6th. These findings encompass a range of accusations, including the dissemination of false fraud allegations, attempts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence, targeting the Department of Justice, and pressuring state officials and lawmakers.
Failure of law enforcement
In addition to scrutinizing Trump’s conduct, the committee has examined the failure of law enforcement to anticipate and address the violence at the Capitol. The findings underscore the prior warnings of plans for violence, the absence of significant involvement by left-wing groups, and the intelligence and law enforcement’s purported inability to comprehend the full extent of Trump’s intentions.
Charges against Trump
The committee’s report suggests potential criminal charges against Trump, outlining specific allegations such as obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to knowingly make a false statement, and assisting, aiding, or comforting an insurrection. These assertions have profound legal implications and have reignited debates regarding the accountability and legal repercussions for the events of January 6th.
Divergent reactions
The committee’s findings and revelations have catalyzed divergent reactions within Congress and the broader public sphere. The implications of the committee’s assertions have further amplified partisan divisions and prompted scrutiny of the accountability and responsibility of individuals implicated in the report.
National discourse
The committee’s revelations and findings have rekindled national discourse surrounding the events of January 6th, prompting renewed reflection on the significance of upholding democratic norms, constitutional obligations, and the accountability of public officials. The public dissemination of the committee’s conclusions has served to underscore the gravity of the insurrection and its implications for the nation’s democratic foundations.
Potentially influencing
The committee’s report is anticipated to catalyze legal and political responses, potentially influencing the ongoing legal and investigative processes while fueling debates on the need for accountability, legislative action, and the preservation of democratic institutions.
Controversy
The controversy surrounding the January 6th Committee’s findings and revelations underscores the multifaceted implications of the events of January 6th and the subsequent investigations. The committee’s scrutiny and the dissemination of its conclusions have reignited public discourse, legal considerations, and political debates, emphasizing the enduring impact of the insurrection on the nation’s democratic fabric.