"Bipartisan Support Grows For 9/11-Style Commission To Probe Capitol Riot."

Headline at Forbes.

Trial first, investigation afterwards. Kind of risky, isn't it? Just to assert that now what we need is an investigation is to make the fanfare of the last week seem, retrospectively, sketchy. We were urged to believe that we saw everything, and we know what we saw and what it all meant. Are we just supposed to forget all that and imagine we're back at square one? How can this commission dare to find things that don't synch with the prosecution's case? Was Brian Sicknick beaten to death with a fire extinguisher?

From the Forbes article: 

“Of course” we need a 9/11-style commission, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) told ABC News’ This Week on Sunday, arguing it should be "impartial,” and “filled with people who would stand up to the courage of their conviction."

Who is impartial? And who are "people who would stand up to the courage of their conviction" who are also impartial? What does "their conviction" even mean if not that they are partial? 

"There's still more evidence that the American people need and deserve to hear,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos Sunday.

Note the implication that the evidence heard at the trial was all good evidence. Nothing amiss there. Just that there's "more evidence." I doubt if Coons is open to a commission that draws the evidence presented at trial into question. 

The House Managers' trial memo said "The insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher" — an overeager assertion that isn't holding up. How much more damage to the Insurrection Myth can American tolerate? Is the point of this commission — the one elected officials are getting bipartisan about — to shore up the legitimacy of the already-concluded proceedings? 

Defending himself as one of the few GOP lawmakers to vote to convict Trump in an interview with ABC News Sunday, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana called for “a complete investigation” including “what was known” and “who knew it” so “this never happens again in future.”

Notice how Cassidy doesn't open up the question of what "it" was, just what was known about "it" and by whom. And by the way, what did you know, Mr. Cassidy, when you chose to vote guilty when there hadn't been the investigation that you say is needed now? What I wanted to know, what I thought was the crucial question in the impeachment, was whether there was a plan to breach the Capitol and whether Trump knew about it when he gave his speech. That's the “what was known” and “who knew it” that matters to me. Why didn't it matter to you, Mr. Cassidy? 

Also I'd like to know whether whether there was a plan to breach the Capitol and whether those in charge of Capitol security knew about it and, if they knew, why did they not provide adequate security? And then if there was a plan and if Trump knew about it, did he have reason to rely on Capitol security to prevent any fulfillment of whatever plan there was and to focus his intention on the free-speech-protected rally of his supporters? Were they overwhelmingly peaceful?

Though Republicans and Democrats... disagree about what the committee should focus on. On Sunday, Graham said he wanted to know if there was a “pre-planned element to the attack” while Coons wanted the commission to focus on Trump’s role in the riot and “lay bare the record just how responsible and how objectfully violating of his constitutional oath” the former president was. 

You can't trust Republicans and Democrats to do this Commission properly, because they have such a strong stake in justifying what they have already done. The 9/11 Commission was given an appearance of impartiality by balancing 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats. That approach won't suffice this time.