December 22, 2022
The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack spent 18 months interviewing more than 1,000 witnesses and concluded that Trump was "the central cause of January 6th" — a finding it built largely from testimony by Trump's own White House staff.
The committee interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses over 18 months
The final report released December 22, 2022 ran 845 pages
Trump and allies made at least 200 documented attempts to pressure state officials between November 2020 and January 6, 2021
Trump's 2:24 p.m. tweet attacking Pence on January 6 came while the mob was actively hunting Pence in the Capitol
Trump watched the Capitol attack on television for 187 minutes before recording a call-off message
Video outtakes from Trump's January 7 address showed him refusing to say 'the election is over'
Vice Chair, Jan. 6 Select Committee
Chair, Jan. 6 Select Committee
Senior White House aide and key witness
White House Counsel who testified under subpoena
White House Chief of Staff and central figure
Vice President and constitutional decision-maker
research
Read the full 845-page January 6 Committee report at govinfo.gov
The January 6 Committee report is one of the most detailed public investigations of a president's conduct ever produced by Congress. It is freely available and searchable. Reading it directly is the most reliable way to know what it actually says.
Read the full 845-page January 6 report at govinfo.gov — it is a public government document you can search and download. The appendix contains full transcripts of key witness testimony including Cassidy Hutchinson's and Pat Cipollone's. Go to govinfo.gov and search for 'January 6 Committee Report.' You can download the full document or specific chapters. Chapter by chapter, the report presents the Committee's factual findings, the evidence behind them, and the legal theories it believed applied. Reading even two or three chapters gives you a firmer grasp on what investigators actually found than any news summary can provide.
civic action
Demand Congress fund and use its inherent contempt power to enforce future oversight subpoenas
Inherent contempt is Congress's only enforcement mechanism that does not depend on an executive branch that may be hostile to the investigation. Pressing your representative on this question is the most targeted way to push for genuinely independent congressional oversight.
Congressional select committees have broad subpoena power and can compel testimony from executive branch officials, but enforcement depends on either the courts or the DOJ. Citizens can demand Congress fund and use its inherent contempt power, which does not require DOJ cooperation. Contact your House representative through house.gov and ask: Do you support Congress funding and activating its inherent contempt power so it can enforce subpoenas without depending on the executive branch? Note whether your representative serves on the House Judiciary or Rules Committees, which have jurisdiction over this question. Ask for a written response.
research
Compare the January 6 Committee's evidentiary record with the Smith indictment to understand how investigations become prosecutions
Congressional investigations and criminal prosecutions apply different standards of proof and have different goals. Reading both documents in parallel is the clearest way to understand how the same set of facts looks different under investigative and prosecutorial frameworks.
Compare the committee's evidentiary record with the charges Jack Smith filed in August 2023 — reading both documents side by side shows how a congressional investigation translates into a criminal indictment, and what evidence prosecutors chose to use or set aside. Download the January 6 report from govinfo.gov and the Smith indictment from justice.gov. Then compare the committee's criminal referrals (Chapter 9) with the four counts in Smith's indictment. Notice which committee findings Smith charged, which he framed differently, and which he set aside entirely. This comparison shows how investigators and prosecutors apply different standards to the same underlying facts.