Poll: The J6 Hearings Had Virtually No Impact on Changing the Public Views

For months, we have been discussing the heavy-handed, one-sided approach of the J6 Committee in the presentation of evidence and witnesses. Both sides blame each other for the absence of a single Republican-selected member. Yet, the Committee treated the lack of balance as a license to present a rigid and scripted account of events and actions, including editing out countervailing views or evidence. For those of us who welcomed the greater transparency on the events of that terrible day, it was a lost opportunity to have a truly historic investigation akin to Watergate or the Kennedy assassination. The result is now evident and unsurprising.  A Monmouth University poll shows that almost 90 percent of respondents report that the hearings have made no change in how they view the J6 riot.  Moreover, despite the overwhelming cooperation and support of the media with the Committee, the vast majority believe that the J6 Committee was a political rather than investigative exercise, focused on opposing Trump rather than disclosing the facts of January 6th.

Respondents were asked “Have the recent House January 6 Committee hearings changed your mind about what happened at the Capitol that day or who is responsible, or have the hearings not changed your mind?” Only eight percent answered in the affirmative while 89 percent said it made no change at all in their views.

What was really striking was the response to a prompt stating “Some say that the Jan. 6 committee’s main aim is to ensure President Trump can’t run in 2024.” Sixty percent agreed with that statement, including 62 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans. That view was reinforced by the baffling decision of Chairman Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney and other members to repeatedly end hearings with calls to oppose Trump in the coming election. It was hardly subtle.

The lack of impact of the hearings is, in my opinion, due to two threshold decisions of the Democrats. First, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others decided that the Committee would focus on reinforcing “a narrative” rather than follow prior investigatory commissions with an open and balanced inquiry.

After bringing in a television producer, the hearings showed members reading off teleprompters and witnesses confined in limited roles of reaffirming what members were declaring about the riot. There was no effort to present alternative interpretations or viewpoints. It played into criticism of a “show trial” environment–an image that was magnified by Cheney declaring in the last hearing that Trump family and associates had come forward to “confess” and encouraging others to do the same.

Many of us supported the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.

Yet, the heavy-handed approach to framing the evidence has been both unnecessary and at times counterproductive. The strength of some of this evidence would not have been diminished by a more balanced committee or investigation. The unquestioning media coverage likely added to the feeling of many that these hearings lacked objective analysis and full accounts of what occurred, including the exclusion of any discussion of why the Capitol was left poorly protected on that day despite prior warnings of potential violence.

Second, the Committee over promised the public. At the start of the hearings, committee members promised they had the long-sought smoking-gun evidence — new material that would close the circle on Trump. Committee member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) indicated he thought there was now “credible evidence” to support a variety of criminal charges. His colleague, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), said the committee would show that Trump organized a “coup” on Jan. 6, 2021. That framing has led to glaring omissions. The Committee has routinely edited videotapes and crafted presentations to eliminate alternative explanations or opposing viewpoints like repeatedly editing out Trump telling his supporters to go to the Capitol peacefully.

Offering a more balanced account, including allowing the Republicans to appoint their own members (in accordance with long-standing tradition), would not have lessened much of the dramatic testimony. Yet, allowing Republicans to pick their members (yes, including Rep. Jim Jordan) would have prevented allegations of a highly choreographed show trial. It would have added credibility to the process. Indeed, much of this evidence would have been hard to refute like the deposition of former Attorney General Bill Barr on the election fraud allegations.

Once again, this Committee could have been transformative for opinions on the riot. Instead, it was another Pelosi signature muscle play. As a witness in the first Trump impeachment, I was highly critical of her insistence that the House would impeach before Christmas rather than conduct the traditional impeachment investigation with witnesses. Instead of building a more convincing case, Pelosi preferred to impeach with virtually no record, for a certain defeat in the Senate. In the second impeachment, she went one better: She held no hearing at all and pushed through what I called the first “snap impeachment.”

The Jan. 6 committee was similarly stripped of any pretense. It was as subtle a political move as Pelosi’s ripping up President Trump’s State of the Union speech. Thus, it was not surprising that, when asked what she hoped to achieve from the committee, Pelosi tellingly referred to it as a “narrative.” It is the difference between seeing and simulating justice.

The results in polling are no less predictable. Presented with one-sided, tightly choreographed hearings, most citizens were left precisely where they began. The hearings were meant to enrage the base rather than add allies. It may have succeeded in that limited objective, but it could have been so much more.

Here is the poll: Monmouth University J6 Poll

259 thoughts on “Poll: The J6 Hearings Had Virtually No Impact on Changing the Public Views”

  1. >“self deleted comment”
    >>Darren is the one deleting comments. You can tell a lot about a person by how they “moderate” comments.
    Wordpress makes some errors, but ATS has himself to blame most of the times. He uses more than one email address. He knows which emails will end up being deleted and which might end up being deleted. Blame Darren, ATS, but anyone who looks through the emails will note that most of the deletions are against you, Anonymous the Stupid. Some others will be deleted as well as they have been banned.

  2. Self-deleted comment: >>Darren is the one deleting comments. You can tell a lot about a person by how they “moderate” comments.”
    You are trying to trick people into believing you have no control over what is deleted. You do, and you caused others to have their comments deleted along with yours. That is not very nice or friendly to others on the blog.

    I called you out on that before and one can go to the following address and look around.

    “I expect the following comments to be deleted.
    Anonymous the Stupid #1 “You’re obsessed ”


    ATS has utilized WordPress’s censorship to his own advantage. ATS is not to be trusted.

  3. We know the j6 committee is a witch hunt. McCarthy blew it when he did not appoint others from congress when Banks and Jordan were denied by the witch. There are other Republicans that could have asked the tough questions. There may have some fair transparency.
    Nancy then hand picked 2 Rinos. McCarthy is no better.

  4. As only 7% American`s are confident in Congress (11% in TV news) [1], why should they trust a political propaganda to criminalize former President Trump?

    American’s connect “The House” mainly with (federal) legislation. Due to inflation, high gas prices, the crisis at the southern border, recession, etc a lot of people don`t get it why they waste so much money and time that developed in biased criminal investigation.

    After the “January 6 Comission” (a blue-print of 9/11 Comission) was blocked by Republicans in the Senate, J6 was established on 6/29/21 after a 218-197 partisan vote. “The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader” (Section 2a). Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) picked Reps Jim Banks (R-Ind), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Rodney Davies (R-Ill), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), and Troy Nehls (R-Texas). Everybody knows who Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appointed as “Minority members.

    [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-down-average-new-low.aspx?
    [2] https://rules.house.gov/bill/117/select-cmte-jan-6

  5. Republicans Attack Law Enforcement With Claims Trump Should Be ‘Above’ The Law

    On Tuesday, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee tweeted out this brilliant response to the search at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence: “If they can do it to a former President, imagine what they can do to you.”

    Well, yes, that is how the rule of law works. If you had committed acts that would persuade a judge to sign off on a search warrant, you, too, would be visited by law enforcement.

    This should be obvious, yet it was not just a stray Republican staffer on the Judiciary Committee who was outraged to find that the defeated former president was subjected to a search warrant. The entire Republican Party went to Defcon 1. What followed was a barrage of attacks on law enforcement, pledges of fidelity to a cult leader undergoing multiple federal and state investigations, and vows of revenge. Oh, and now it’s Republicans who want to defund law enforcement.

    Edited From:



    For weeks Professor Turley has told us that the January 6th Committee is illegitimate because Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are not ‘real Republicans’. The idea seems to be that no ‘real Republican’ would ever question Donald Trump’s intentions.

    In other words, the January 6th Committee would only be legitimate if it allowed Trump toadies to sabotage the investigation.

    This brings us to Monday’s document seizure at Mar-a-Lago. Trump loyalists have tried to top each other with over-the-top denouncements of the FBI. References to the ‘Gestapo’ and ‘goons in hob-nailed boots’ have been common place.

    All these comments promote the idea that Donald Trump should ‘not’ have to heed ordinary laws. “So what if he refuses to hand over classified documents. That’s Trump’s prerogative”!

    The fact that so many Turley commenters believe Trump is above the law raises again the question, “Is Johnathan Turley a competent academic?”

    1. The FBI didn’t do this to Hilary or Hunter did they? Trump had a SCIF in Mar A Lago, Hilary had her classified material in a closet. Hunter clearly lied on his gun purchase forms and failed to register as a foreign agent.

      Yet no raids on their empires. This isn’t justice, it’s partisan police.

      1. Yes and then two days after a SWAT team raided Mar a Lago, Biden takes off for vacation and they rub it right in your face by having Hunter Biden board AF1 at Andrews AFB with his father. It’s just IN YOUR FACE corruption. They don’t care.

    2. Really ?

      Just a few of the people who are above the law.

      Hillary Clinton.
      Paul Pelosi.
      Paul Pelosi Jr.
      Hunter Biden.
      Peter Strzok
      Andrew McCabe,
      James Comey,
      Joe Biden,

      And oh so many more.

    3. “Is Johnathan Turley a competent academic?”

      At least now we know the motivation behind the resurgent smear campaign against Turley. —

      “Let’s get Trump on a documents charge.”

      “Who might expose us?”

      “Turley. He’ll see right through this. And the public trusts him.”

      “Unleash the smear warriors.”

      1. “Is Johnathan Turley a competent academic?”

        Sam, you are absolutely right. This anonymous goes under other names as well, and criticism of those aliases applies to him as well. Here, however, he attempts to libel Professor Turley. It demonstrates how poorly educated this anonymous is. Like him or hate him, Turley is brilliant, and whatever case he makes holds water even if one has good claims opposite those of Turley.

        These jerks cannot manage a cogent discussion on the material presented. They are obstructionists who do not care about the truth. You have said it before, their responses represent their low level of education.

    4. The judge in question has given the FBI a very short deadline to answer publicly why the Warrant should not be made public.

      I strongly suspect we will see this warrant soon.

      As to your claim that Warrants should be presumptively presumed as honest – that died with the Carter Page FISA warrant.

      As for your claim that we follow the rule of law – that died oh so many times with the lawless actions of democrats.

      You conducted a lawless election – literally. Governor’s, and courts, and sec. States made up new ways to conduct elections spur of the moment in 2020 without regard to existing election laws or state constitutions.

      That is lawless.

      YOU told us all that sitting presidents can not ask for investigations into political rivals. You were so adamant you impeached Trump for asking for an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden – even though there is way more than probable cause for an investigation.
      And now you claim that the same rules do not apply to you ?

      You ha ve sought to investigate Parents who are angry about the garbage their kids are being taught.
      You back the FBI investigating them as domestic terrorist

      And you want to rant about the rule of law ?

      You support an FBI that labels people citing the declaration of independence, our founding fathers, or displaying official flags of this country as potentially domestic terrorists ?

      and you want to rant about the rule of law ?

      You lie constantly,
      and actively seek to abuse whatever political power you have to punish those with whom you have political differences
      And you expect to be beleived about the rule of law ?

      You do not know what the rule of law is, and do not follow it when you do.

      “Wolf, Wolf, Wolf !”

    5. When they say no real republican, it doesn’t mean unrequited fealty to Donald Trump, it means a conservative who puts America first, which is HARDLY what has been going on for the last 2 years with flotsam like Kinsinger and Cheney who are retiring or getting hammered in primaries by republican voters. You fail to mention a president has never before been subjected to “jack boot” practices of partisan law enforcement. You fail to mention he was working with the DOJ and FBI. You fail to mention they were in his residence weeks before and didn’t seem to have a problem with what was there other than to put a better lock on the room. You fail to mention they waited until Trump was out of town. You fail to mention they pulled this stunt on the SAME date Nixon resigned over watergate. Nowhere did anyone say Trump should not have to heed the law. However, wouldn’t it be nice if you leftists went after Hillary for the glaring breeches of actual laws she committed?

    6. Trump is not above the law and has never said he was. His representatives had been cooperating with authorities about the documents in question for months. There was absolutely no need to send 30 agents into his personal residence and conduct a 9-hour search not allowing Trump’s attorneys to be on the premises. Imagine if Trump’s DOJ had done the same thing to Obama or Hillary, then how would you comment? Let me guess.

    7. The J6 committee is illegitmate for many reasons.

      Congress has the power to investigate government – not private actors, or private actions.

      That responsibility rests with law enforcement where a number of constitutional requirements are supposed to prevent fishing expeditions.

      The houses rules – which Pelosi and democrats voted into effect, require each party to choose the members who sit on valid committees.

      Kinzinger and Chenney were chosen by Democrats. Actual republicans boycotted the committee when Pelosi – again against the rules the house chose. refused to seat the members that Republicans had chosen.

      If this does nto make the committee illegitimate – what would it take ?

      Republicans with certainty at this point will take the house in November.

      Are you going to be OK with Republicans piking the democrats that get to sit on committtees ?

      Can republicans bar AOC, Swallwell, Nadler, Schiff, …. from whatever committees they wish ?
      Can they pick the democrats they want on various committees ?

      Turn about is fair play.

      When someone appears before a house committee, they can not call their own witnesses, they can not cross examine house witnesses.

      The adversarial process that is core to common laws as the engine by which we get to the truth only exists in congressional committees to the extent that the parties are at odds and that each party gets to put whoever they want on comittees, and therefore witnesses are subjected to tough questions, not softballs, and that the claims of witnesses will be subject to actual scrutiny.

      We have had innumerable instances where shocking claims by J6 witnesses colapsed under scrutiny.
      But that scrutiny did not occur at the hearing – as it should have – because there was no one to ask the tough questions.

    8. Anyone who uses the WaPo as a source is already compromised. Anyone who believes the WaPo is a fool.

    9. I bet you worked hard to become so conditioned.. It’s hilarious someone as bright as you obviously are can’t see the truth that’s right i’m your face.. Grow up..

    10. Your comments are normally spot on, whether I agree with what you offer or not.
      However, your sentence about why someone should expect to have a warrant issued against them left out the word ‘alleged.’ If you have committed acts…….versus if you have allegedly committed acts.
      We all know that law enforcement have great sway with Judges to get a warrant approved by the Judge —

  6. The wrong Jan. 6 topic was “investigated.” Instead of the supposed insurrection, hearings should have investigated the DOJ’s brutal treatment of hundreds of protesters for offenses like milling around the Capitol and putting their feet on Pelosi’s desk. (If this was an insurrection, it was the most absurd one ever, with the alleged rebels forgetting to organize or bring weapons.) This is nothing but trying to break the Dems’ political opponents. The DOJ also needs to be investigated over the deaths of Ashli Babbit and Rosanne Boyland and the beating of Victoria White, and Pelosi and the mayor of Washington need to be investigated over their refusal of Trump’s offer of thousands of National Guards for that day. This whole thing is sickening. The FBI is completely rotten for the top down.

    1. Rotten indeed. Defund the FBI, fire them all, then destroy the building. If I hear one more person say the rot is only at the top, not the “rank and file” I am going to slap them upside the head.

      1. A clue as to the institutional rot in the FBI is to note how many resignations submitted since the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago?

        1. A clue as to Trump’s acceptance that the warrant was valid: he hasn’t challenged it in court.

    2. “putting their feet on Pelosi’s desk”

      After breaking into her office and causing the evacuation of members of Congress and the VP from the Capitol building. That you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the actual crimes tells us about your extreme bias.

  7. Do you realize that the DC establishment has been investigating Donald Trump for seven years. Probably the biggest witch-hunt in history.

  8. Garland should know he will be ranked with Alexander Palmer as one of the two worst attorney generals in the history of this country.

    This appalling raid is only the latest of many contemptible acts of his.

    1. Plan A was to get Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court. Plan B was to put him in charge of DOJ while they inflicted as much of their agenda (damage, harm) on the country as they could get away with in four years.


    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    – Declaration of Independence, 1776

  10. The FBI took a bulldozer to an anthill. They could have handled this so much better. Now, the press secretary says she will not comment. That does not do well for their image. As they would say, “It is bad optics.”

    Here is a job description from the IRS website. I think the part about being able to carry a gun and willing to use deadly force is especially helpful in the present political environment. Take a look!.

    I am sure most don’t carry guns, but all of them have the badge of a federal officer and they don’t make small talk…and, they always will win.


      1. They’re being hired to go after tax cheats with incomes over $400,000. Are you in that group?

        1. Sure. Read my lips. It’s not a “recession.” It wasn’t a “raid.” Biden heard about it “in the news like everybody else.” It was done “by the book.” “ZERO inflation” in July!

          Wake up! You clearly do not know what time it is.

        2. What a foolish comment that demonstrates historical ignorance. Who remembers when the AMT was passed? It was passed to make sure a few ultra-rich folk paid taxes. How many good earners and home owners have never thought about being faced with the AMT at one time or another? How thinks taxes aren’t passed onto the consumer even if the consumer earns a minimal living?

          This anonymous along with ATS doesn’t understand reality.

  11. Many are now calling the US a Banana Republic under the Biden Administration. But many Banana Republics have vehemently objected to this characterization. “We absolutely condemn comparisons of the US Government to any of the world’s Banana Republics. These shocking and unfair comparisons cast a dark stain on the reputations of our Banana Republics.” –Daniel Ortega, President of Nicaragua since 2007.

  12. I am wondering if the Gestapo raid on the Trump home will have any impact on the trial of the remaining two Whitmer ‘kidnappers’ set up by FBI geniuses.

    Can any jury believe anything in which these feeb lunatics are involved?

    No wonder the needle isn’t moving on the J6 scam.

  13. A few simple facts.

    1)A grand jury subpoenaed Trump on June 3. Accepting the subpoena Trump politely authorized the FBI to pick up the papers in question. The FBI did so and Trumped thanked them for their efforts telling them if they needed anything else he would provide it for them.

    They then asked to go to the storage room which they did and when they left they placed a lock on the door that was intact when they broke into the storage room this past week.

    2) The warrant was under seal

    3)The Judge had a history of posting negative statements about Trump on social media. He even recused himself on a recent case involving Trump, which tells us he should have recused himself again.

    1. I want to make it clear that on all three things above Anonymous the Stupid lied. That is his nature.

  14. It appears the FBI does charge politicians for financial kickbacks and corruption afterall. Miracles of miracles.

    Former Governor of Puerto Rico Arrested in Bribery Scheme

    The alleged bribery scheme rose to the highest levels of the Puerto Rican government, threatening public trust in our electoral processes and institutions of governance,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “The Department of Justice is committed to holding accountable those who wrongly believe there is one rule of law for the powerful and another for the powerless. No one is above the rule of law.”

    So to recap, a Hispanic, female, person of color, gets charged and arrested for what but Hunter, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton / Clinton Global Initiative did, vis a vis “threatened public trust in our electoral process and institutions of governance”. The Governor of Puerto Rico is accused of doing the aforementioned but at a fraction of what the Bidens/Clintons did. Nancy Pelosi says “no one is above the law”, as she enriches her husband’s stock portfolio based on her insider trading info

    Perhaps they should heed Thomas Jefferson’s words written in 1787

    There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted

    Jefferson to Smith, November 13, 1787, in PTJ, 12:355-57.


    Hope in God indeed

  15. Anonymous the Stupid, I don’t like liars and people who are deceitful. Do you recognize yourself?

    Self-deleted: “f you don’t like anonymous comments,…”

  16. Self deleted by ATS: “You’re a homophobic troll, as you make clear from many of your comments. “

    ATS is now calling people names but is afraid of anyone proving it was he. HE should be thrown off the blog for such actions.

  17. Self deleted by ATS: “What happened to Elvis Bug?”

    Someone stepped on the roach. Now when you hear from him, it will be from the bottom of someone’s shoe.

Leave a Reply