January 6 Committee Expands Probe of House Republicans

Rep. Barry Loudermilk denies Democrats' allegations that a January 5 tour he gave of the Capitol had any relation to the subsequent attack.

By
51

Good morning. Haley has been solo parenting since Saturday while packing to move. (This process has involved multiple croissants for Baby Lewis.) Audrey is stepping in with an update on the work of the January 6 committee. 

Loudermilk in the Spotlight

(Photo by Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images.)

One week after announcing subpoenas against GOP Reps. Kevin McCarthy, Mo Brooks, Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, and Andy Biggs for testimony in the events leading up to the Capitol riot, the House Select Committee on January 6 announced yet another House Republican target for inquiry: Georgia Rep. Barry Loudermilk.

Committee Chairmen Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney said in a letter to Loudermilk on Thursday that the committee had obtained evidence he conducted a tour of the U.S. Capitol on January 5, 2021, one day before the riot. The letter asked him to voluntarily cooperate with the committee this week and sit for an interview for information regarding the tour.

“Public reporting and witness accounts indicate some individuals and groups engaged in efforts to gather information about the layout of the U.S. Capitol, as well as the House and Senate office buildings” ahead of the riot, the letter said. 

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
51
By
Comments (51)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    “ Loudermilk in the Spotlight”

    His name sounds like it’s straight out of Charles Dickens.

    “ Loudermilk flatly denied that the tour was intended to be a reconnaissance mission, as House Democrats had suggested in the days following the riot. ”

    I wouldn’t put it past him, but admittedly, that seems like a hard thing to prove.

    Collapse
    1. AU_88

      Loudermilk is lying because he is a liar.

      Collapse
  2. Old Dragoon

    So, Our representatives have another opportunity to grandstand - over baby formula this time One wonders what national “crisis” that they cannot solve will they bloviate on next?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Pastorfbt

    Bravo for the shout-out to Guy Fieri. Love me some Triple D.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    As I keep saying, the fact that Republicans now use Congressional subpoenas as toilet paper will come in handy if Republicans re-take the House in November. They have already vowed to kill the 1/6 committee on their first day and commence their prosecution of 1/6 prosecutors. Let them *try* to call witnesses though.

    People in the "1/6 was no big deal" camp should remember that 1/6 will have effectively killed Congress' ability to call hostile witnesses.

    Collapse
    1. Anonymous

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Our Constitution gives a lot of leeway for Congress to do this, so I don't think there's any constitutional question.

        As for the DOJ, our Constitution arranges this under the Executive branch (which I think was a mistake) which means that the balance of powers demands there be oversight, and without the subpoena power you can't do that. (Imagine what Trump and Barr would have done if they knew they were not accountable to Congress's investigations).

        The Founders clearly envisioned Congress as the most powerful branch of the three.

        To answer your question directly, Congress does *not* have the power to *enforce laws*, only to subpoena witnesses and refer cases to the DOJ.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pterseus

          Impeachment is the remedy offered if the Executive misbehaves. I think I read that Congress can only subpoena for legislative purposes. Unfortunately, Congress can abuse its power as well by harassing the Executive with endless investigations designed for public consumption. I think the framers realized this. If you defy a confessional subpoena you can have your day in civil court, which is the way it should be I think.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            So how do you impeach without subpoena power?

            Subpoena power is an "implied power" in that it enables other enumerated powers to exist.

            All of the branches can abuse their power, so there's no silver bullet solution. As I implied above I think it would have been better if the AG was arranged under the *judicial* branch (e.g. the Supreme Court) but the Founders didn't do it that way.

            The Founders figured that if our Congress goes completely bananas, then we're fucked. There's no magical way around this.

            In 2023, if the GOP re-takes Congress, the 1/6 committee will be abolished and the Republicans will commence revenge investigations into the 1/6 investigators (along with no less than 37 revenge impeachments of Biden). This will be absolutely horrible, but the buck needs to stop somewhere in a democracy no matter how much you try to create structure around it. Congress is the proper place to have the last word for our republic.

            (Reminds me of the Churchill-attributed quip, "democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the other ones").

            Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Bill B

    What difference does it make if Garland refuses to perp walk these guys into a jailhouse. How many subpoenas are being ignored?

    Collapse
    1. Acre00

      Pretty much all congressional subpoenas ever issued.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Pterseus

    I was a supporter of the Jan 6 committee at first, but it seems they have had plenty of time to do what they need to do. If they want to recommend prosecution then do so. If they want to censure then do so. This is all starting to feel like a Star Chamber designed to stigmatize rather than a committee designed to shed light. We all know what happened on Jan 6 and very little is going to change anyone’s opinion (I think it was a disgraceful riot). Now will Republicans form similar committees to investigate the Kavanaugh hearings or Adam Schiff’s shamelessness during his hearings into the now debunked Russia collusion matter? Does anyone remember Pelosi calling federal agents defending the Hatfield courthouse stormtroopers and calling for their identities to be revealed to Antifa activists? Point being, Congress has a lot of latitude in its rhetoric and associations, but now everything is turning into shame theater for the cameras to influence the next election, and it isn’t helping our politics.

    Collapse
    1. AU_88

      So you agree with the RNC that January 6 was "legitimate political discourse?"

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pterseus

        No

        Collapse
        1. AU_88

          Then why mention "Russia collusion?"

          You either want the insurrectionists -- and their enablers in the Congressional GOP -- held accountable, or you don't.

          You can be with Kevin McCarthy and Mike Lindell, or Cheney & Kinzinger. Pick a side.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pterseus

            I brought up the crumbling Russia Collusion narrative as an example of something Republicans could bring up in partisan hearings to grandstand about Jan 6 style. I’m not against the DOJ investigation, nor do I think Jan 6 committee should be ended, I just question its effectiveness. I admire Cheney and Kinzinger but fear there is a temptation to name and shame without acknowledging due process. It sets a dangerous precedent because challenging a subpoena is being treated as a crime against democracy. I reject your pick a side, either/or fallacy. We can support accountability while questioning the way it is being pursued on a constitutional or political level.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Robert Knudson

      I don't like Congressional grandstanding, but if that is what it takes to stigmatize the behavior of the Members of both Houses and the associates of the President (if not Trump himself) who were involved with organizing the events of January 6th, then so be it. I have long believed the Democrats to be rotten; seeing the evidence presented before this committee is confirmation of my suspicion that the Republicans are rotten too. Name and shame.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Magpie

      "I was a supporter of the Jan 6 committee at first, but it seems they have had plenty of time to do what they need to do." Quite a bit of time has been spent attempting to gain access to relevant documents and get witnesses to testify. As the article states, "Not a single House Republican who has been asked to voluntarily cooperate with the committee has agreed to do so." Is that the Republican strategy, then, to hamper the committee's work at every turn and then complain that the process is taking too long? After refusing to support the formation of a bipartisan commission, of course.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pterseus

        Fast and Furious, IRS, we’ve seen this kind of stonewalling before. That’s why this is the wrong way to go about it. It is a political process where the choice is to commit political suicide or take your chances in civil court for contempt of Congress. Citizens have the right to go to court to protect their reputations. I favor a behind the scenes investigation such as a special prosecutor to remove the public circus aspect. Yes, it is Republicans’ fault that it has come to this, but the precedent won’t be good when the shoe is on the other foot.

        Collapse
    4. Adam

      I agree, but Republicans put themselves in this position by opposing the bipartisan commission, which would have finished its work by the end of last year.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pterseus

        I totally agree.

        Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      "It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process, and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modem era."

      -- The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee's Report on Trump/Russia

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pterseus

        Those conclusions have not held and are not holding up very well to subsequent revelations from Durham and others.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          They have held up *perfectly* and we now have even *more* evidence about Trump's involvement with Russia, including his statements **from the last few months**.

          The Durham investigation is over *one* meaningless aspect of the investigation wherein somebody allegedly didn't fully disclose their affiliation to the FBI. It's worth nothing that had this person *not* informed the FBI of what they discovered he could be charged with aiding multiple felonies, so the only issue here is the ultimately meaningless question of his affiliation. And this is all, to be clear, not been proven in court.

          Seriously, after Trump's statements in **recent months** you can still look at him and conclude "it was all a hoax"? Seriously?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pterseus

            My position is there is no evidence for a criminal conspiracy. Would he have accepted dirt on Clinton from a Russian source? Probably, but I wouldn’t put it past Clinton either. After all her campaign used several foreign sources to fabricate dirt on Trump. Pot, meet kettle. The Alpha bank story wasn’t harmless. It led to FISA warrants and ruined lives along with other baseless allegations. I won’t defend Trump’s words, but I do think there was wrongdoing in our government that needs to be uncovered no matter how you feel about Trump. After all, he was elected fairly and kneecapped by rumor and innuendo from an opposing campaign deceiving credulous government officials. The impact of Russian interference was negligible.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Logical

          NR talking point not holding up well.
          https://www.thebulwark.com/the-alfa-bank-hoax-hoax/

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pterseus

            The Bulwark? Really? It isn’t an NR talking point, it is a matter of record. Where are the prosecutions for anything other than unrelated process crimes after all that time and money? Mueller, Horowitz, and Durham don’t write for NR last time I checked.

            Collapse
  7. AU_88

    May I say a few words about my idiot Congressman, Barry Loudermilk?

    His first act in Congress was to violate a campaign promise -- voting for John Boehner for speaker after vowing not to during his primary against Bob Barr.

    Since that January day in 2015, I couldn't name for you a single legislative accomplishment of Barry's.

    He's an old-school anti-vaxxer, too, refusing to have his children immunized against measles or mumps.

    And if this lying insurrectionist is insulted by this *assault on his character and integrity,* there's an easy fix: Don't wait for a subpoena, Barry. Go under oath and name the people you gave this tour to (which you denied for more than a year.)

    No one challenged Barry in the primary in this (roughly) R+15 district. So I'll vote for the sacrificial Democrat in the fall. Because I can't abide having a lying, scumbag fascist for a US Representative.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      Well, at least he seems to be living up to his last name. I guess that's one accomplishment? 🤔

      Collapse
      1. AU_88

        Oh, I forgot the best part:

        His son is District Director for Marjorie Three Toes. So QAnon runs through the family bloodstream, too.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Jean-Christophe Jouffrey

        Dear Aylene Wright,

        Instead of Sour Milk they should have put Louder Milk in the baby formula : the babies would have been heard instead of being sick... Heard saying loudly "I didn't do it! You saw me with my hand in the cookie jar, but I didn't do it!"

        Collapse
  8. Patrick O'Sullivan

    I will never understand specific, vociferous denials of innocuous things that may have happened.

    "There were no tours [comma] no large groups [comma] no one with MAGA caps on"

    Really? And you reviewed the security footage! That's great! Thank you, House Republicans. We're set here.

    Except, no, now we're not set. Now you're telling me "Uh, actually, there was a tour. I know I said there wasn't, but I lied. And I know that I told you that there were no MAGA caps, but I lied. And I know I insinuated that the security footage supported those facts, but l lied.

    You have to understand though: I could have told the truth, but that would have been less convenient for me and for the other House Republicans. So I had to lie! I couldn't tell the truth and explain that this was a harmless tour, I had to lie, because otherwise the Democrats may have been in a better position! When you think about it, it's really *their* fault. And besides, there's nothing wrong with lying to the New York Times. Really, it's your fault for trusting me."

    Fuck them. Fuck all of them, but today, fuck Georgia Rep. Barry Loudermilk in particular, along with everyone who wrote that false letter, and everyone in Congress who pretends that they have morals and goals that rank above their own naked pursuit of power.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Lying when you are obviously lying is the new Republican brand.

      Collapse