comment: >
  
  I think the reason is the committee didn’t want to dilute the core story of the people at the top who were most responsible. 
  If they had released a full laundry list of crimes they uncovered during their investigation it would have been easily waved away with Trump and co also using it as a foil to argue partisanship (witch hunt anyone). Instead they identified the key players that committed the most serious crimes, so now the answer to “witch hunt” is “yes, look at this coven of egregious witches and the clear evidence of their crimes”.
context: Does the report say anything about the secret service texts ? That’s what I am most curious about. >
  
  I don’t know what your talking about, but since I see no reply’s it only further peaks my curiosity >
  
  the texts from secret service agents that went "missing" after a "routine" device purge happened during the presidential change over.
  i don't know if it was in the report, but that was a pretty "convenient" breach of governmental records keeping. >
  
  To be fair… I’d comfortably say 4/5 government employees have no idea how to comply with records mandates.
  (Source: work for government… issue phones… no idea) >
  
  the guy decommissioning old phones, though? >
  
  It’s not like there is even a message backup in most cases. You wipe the phone and send it back to your managing authority to turn in to GSA or some equivalent. Honestly, this is really a government wide problem as far as national archives go.
  Edit: factory reset, not wipe… but, tomato/tomatoe >
  
  It's a missed opportunity to be sure, and doesn't make any sense. >
  
  The focus of the committee report appears to be on people who were part of the government... and Ginni Thomas was technically only an activist who was tangentially organizing the events and people who would then go on to be the rioters.
  This does not mean that she won't be a target of Jack Smith's investigation though. >
  
  I agree with you — Jack Smith will be able to follow a lot of threads and unlike previous joke special counsels (Ken Starr and John Dunham), Smith has a wide remit, documented criminality, and a vast array of background investigative material to work with. Ginni Thomas probably believes she’s above the law and immune from scrutiny because of her marriage to Clarence Thomas, but I have a feeling Jack Smith already has her on the radar and could — quite possibly — mention the refusal by Justice Thomas to recuse himself in the case involving January 6 records from the White House. >
  
  Doubtful.  The powerful will pervert the outcome.  See: Mueller. >
  
  See Barr. >
  
  Barr could be in charge by the time things are completed.  If I’m not mistaken, we all saw the crime on TV in real time, and no one organizing the violence has been arrested let alone charged. >
  
  Wasn’t Stuart Rhodes just convicted of sedition like a month ago?
  They have to get the people on the bottom and work their way up. >
  
  Don't forget Charlie Kirk at Turning Points USA sent 80 buses full of people to the Jan 6 insurrection. Sure, not everyone participated in the riot, but thousands did. >
  
  The mr macky lookin guy with the giant forehead and tiny mouth? >
  
  Didn't he claim his rejection from West Point was based on Affirmative Action and not on the fact that he's an incompetent, pathetic fuck? >
  
  It was probably strategic, as much of this stuff has been, to avoid it being written off as conspiracy theorizing, even if everything in it is true. It’s all optics do this hits harder. >
  
  I think the focus on Trump was very strategic. They want a former US President charged with federal crimes. There's really no precedent for that currently. They sort of had to create the precedent, and to some degree, pressure.
  The DOJ is going to investigate and charge whoever they want anyway. It's not like the Jan 6 Committee are in any way limiting their ability to do that. >
  
  Indeed. If they can take down the President for this, literally no position of direct or inferred privilege/authority will keep you safe. >
  
  So far everyone appears safe despite the obvious 14a-3 disqualification. >
  
  Due to Congress's lack of specific legislation regarding enforcement per 14a-5, this is the avenue we need to take. I don't like it but it's what we're working with. Even if such legislation were passed now, I can't think this SCOTUS would let it stay. >
  
  All of the conspirators meed to be brought to justice or they will be tempted to try again. The layers, staff, congressmen, and ginni thomas.