Cost Effective Hearings?

Before spending time and money on any major undertaking, most successful businesses employ what is known as a “cost benefit analysis.”

What would have happened if the U S House of Representatives had followed that practice before authorizing (on July 1^st, 2021) what is now popularly known as the January 6^th Hearings?

Hold on, Hannity (and other right-wing pundits).  Not so fast.  Breath in, breath out.  Relax.  Good.

If you were to take time to read the original authorization document, and if you were being completely objective (a stretch for some, I know), you might forego your kneejerk reaction and acknowledge that the stated intention of the hearings was, indeed, important.

Go ahead.  Take a peek at the House Select Committee’s document authorizing the hearings.  A careful reading of the Committee’s statement of purpose stipulates five findings of fact and three specific purposes.  (See https://january6th.house.gov/about)

The five finding of facts are as follows:

1. There was “an assault on the United States Capitol Complex” on January 6^th, 2022.

2. On January 27^th, 2021, the Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin warning that certain groups “could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence.”  (Note that this bulletin was issued five months after the Capitol Attack now being investigated by the aforementioned hearings.)

3. On September 26^th, 2020, the FBI testified before the House of Representatives that the causes of “domestic violence extremism remain constant” and that “white supremacist” ideology is the prime motivator.  (Note that this testimony took place nearly sixteen months before the hearings.)

4. On April 15, 2021, the Inspector General for the U S Capito Police testified that the USCP’s procedures for operations, communication, and analysis were deficient.  (Note that this testimony took place nearly three months before the hearings.)

5. On June 15^th, 2021, the Inspector General for the U S Capito Police testified that the USCP “did not have adequate policies and procedures for the FRU (First Responder Unit) and that the FRU “lacked resources and training to properly completing its mission.”  (Note that this testimony took place nearly one month before the hearings.)

Based on the five facts stipulated above, the House Select Committee’s authorization document then lays out the details of how the hearings will be conducted and specifies the three purposes to be addressed by the hearing, as follows:

1. “To investigate and report upon the circumstances and causes relating to the attack on the capitol.”

2. “To examine and evaluate evidence developed by other agencies.”

3. “To build upon” such evidence in order to avoid “unnecessary duplication of efforts.”

Fair enough.  The stipulation of facts and the three objectives cited above are important and worthy of congressional action.  Even Hannity would have a hard time disagreeing with that.

With that in mind, now take a look at how the House Select Committee has conducted the hearings to date.

Has the Committee stayed true to the undeniably worthy objectives specified in the authorization document?

If the answer is yes, your “cost benefit analysis” would be positive and the time and money being spent would be acceptable.

If, however, the conduct of the House Select Committee has not stayed true to the purposes of its own authorizing document, the expenditure of time and money would not be acceptable.

What do you think?