The Capitol Storm Case Study Committee has often been compared to the 9/11 Commission.

That was always weird.

Because the 9/11 Commission was a cross-party concern.

The outrage that the CIA and FBI could have stopped the terrorists if they had cooperated better united Democrats and Republicans at the time.

Majid Sattar

Political correspondent for North America based in Washington.

  • Follow I follow

Of course, party politics also played a role back then.

When the witness Condoleezza Rice was asked in committee in April 2004 what the title of the President's Daily Brief was for August 6, 2001, George W. Bush's National Security Adviser replied that she believed the The headline read: "Bin Laden determined to launch an attack in the United States".

That was the moment when many Democrats believed they still had a chance in the presidential election a few months later.

They were known to be wrong.

The terrorist attacks had hit the country to the heart.

The legal battle over the outcome of the 2000 presidential election had polarized America - 9/11 brought it back together.

That had an effect.

Bush still had high popularity ratings in 2004.

The most difficult and costly years of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were still to come for the country.

Party politics did not overshadow the actual work of the Commission.

As a consequence of the official failure, the post of National Intelligence Director was created and large parts of the security apparatus were restructured.

Committee candidates as participants in the crime

On the other hand, when the commission was to be set up on January 6, 2021 last summer, the political climate was poisoned.

The Republicans quickly suppressed the shock of the attack on American democracy.

Their leadership had made the decision to avoid breaking with Donald Trump to keep the party from splitting.

First, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell opposed an independent commission.

He accused the Democrats of wanting to abuse the body as a partisan weapon.

For a short time it looked as if at least the House of Representatives would set up a regular parliamentary committee of inquiry.

Then Kevin McCarthy, McConnell's counterpart in the first chamber, used a decision by Nancy Pelosi to sabotage that idea as well.

The "speaker" of the House of Representatives had rejected two committee members nominated by the Republicans.

Their justification was not out of thin air: the candidates were involved in the crime.

In the end, there was a committee that was not intended by the rules of procedure: Democrats and Republicans do not sit on it equally, because the Republicans did not want to participate.

So it's actually a committee of the Democrats, in which two conservative Never-Trumpers are also represented.

Democrats and Republicans don't have equal shares because Republicans didn't want to participate.

So it's actually a committee of the Democrats, in which two conservative Never-Trumpers are also represented.

Democrats and Republicans don't have equal shares because Republicans didn't want to participate.

So it's actually a committee of the Democrats, in which two conservative Never-Trumpers are also represented.

While the committee met behind closed doors for months, the public opinion spread that the matter would go nowhere: Basically, everything was known.

Americans had repeatedly seen images of violent mobs storming the seat of Congress and interrupting the session of Parliament to certify Joe Biden's election victory.

What news could come of it, especially since witness after witness seemed to be resisting his summons?

Wouldn't it be better to let the matter rest and look to the future, for the sake of inner peace?