Committee hearings are not the same as trials
In response to Stephen Schenk’s July 29 letter, facts and accuracy matter.
First, the Justice Department has an internal policy about not publicly taking certain actions shortly before an election (as Republican Comey did).
This does not mean that the investigations stop. The DOJ is part of the executive branch; Congress is part of the legislative branch and has no such internal policy and other factors determining a timetable.
Second, many of the witnesses before the January 6 Committee are Republicans, as are two members of the committee.
Rather than claiming that the committee is trying to destroy the Republican Party, one could say that these Republicans are trying to save the Party and return to the days when it was governed by honorable Conservative and Democratic principles, and when the state of right counted. Think of Goldwater telling Nixon to quit.
People also read…
Third, committee hearings are not trials.
There’s no real comparison, but if there was, the hearings would be more like an inquest or a grand jury indictment.
The goal is to see if there is sufficient probable cause to take the next step, which could be a trial with defense attorneys.
The vast majority of federal agents testify most often before grand juries (where hearsay is allowed) and are not subject to “vigorous cross-examination.”
Most criminals plead rather than go to court because cases are thoroughly investigated and usually well prepared.
Therefore, the need to go to court and testify in court is not the norm for federal law enforcement officers.
Mr. Schenk knows the difference between an indictment and a trial, which makes his statements in support of his opinion seem somewhat hyperbolic and dishonest.
People need to eliminate their emotions and pay attention to accuracy and facts.