This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Material from United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack was split to United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack public hearings on June 13, 2022 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Are Trump's missing phone logs mentioned here? Or if not here, where?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
What happened to the chart listing the hearings scheduled for June? WordwizardW ( talk) 13:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
GordonGlottal ( talk) 17:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
I'm pretty sure this needs an article now. Both DOJ and the committee are investigating it. Please feel free to contribute.
/info/en/?search=Draft:Trump_alternate_electors_controversy
soibangla ( talk) 11:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
July 28: 2022 "Jeffrey Rosen" needs to be "Jeffrey A. Rosen" .Regards -- Flo Beck ( talk) 12:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
In the role column of the table, the following appears 15 times:
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)
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)
"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)
soibangla ( talk) 00:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)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]
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Material from United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack was split to United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack public hearings on June 13, 2022 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Are Trump's missing phone logs mentioned here? Or if not here, where?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
What happened to the chart listing the hearings scheduled for June? WordwizardW ( talk) 13:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
GordonGlottal ( talk) 17:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
I'm pretty sure this needs an article now. Both DOJ and the committee are investigating it. Please feel free to contribute.
/info/en/?search=Draft:Trump_alternate_electors_controversy
soibangla ( talk) 11:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
July 28: 2022 "Jeffrey Rosen" needs to be "Jeffrey A. Rosen" .Regards -- Flo Beck ( talk) 12:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
In the role column of the table, the following appears 15 times:
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)
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)
"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)
soibangla ( talk) 00:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)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]