In the heart of Washington, a mere week after the nation solemnly commemorated the fifth anniversary of the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, the narrative surrounding that pivotal day is undergoing a significant transformation. With the Republican Party now holding sway, the events of January 6 are being re-evaluated, with a fresh lens aimed at reshaping public understanding.

This shift was prominently on display as the House GOP’s newly formed Select Committee on the January 6 attack convened its inaugural session. The committee’s agenda initially focused on scrutinizing the FBI’s prolonged investigation into the explosive devices discovered near the Democratic and Republican National Committee headquarters on that fateful day. This probe, fraught with delays, culminated in the arrest of a suspect only last month.

However, what began as a straightforward examination quickly spiraled into a platform for revisionist narratives. With Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the militant group Oath Keepers, conspicuously seated in the front row, the hearing morphed as Republicans delved into alternate explanations. They proposed that supporters of then-President Donald Trump were misled into their violent assault on the Capitol—a siege that captured global attention.

“There’s been considerable discourse on conspiracy theories and narratives,” admitted Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia, the committee’s chairman, amidst the charged atmosphere of the two-hour session. He emphasized his commitment to unearthing the truth, underscoring the complex interplay between factual accuracy and speculative theories.

Truth and conspiracy theories collide

But the top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, warned he and others would not sit by silently as the Republican-led committee tried to rewrite history.

“The truth is a resilient thing,” Raskin said. “We’re not going to put up with a pack of lies in this subcommittee and a bunch of conspiracy theories.”

What’s clear is that five years on, the national trauma left behind by Jan. 6 still engulfs Congress, and the country, as Americans come to terms with what happened that day, when Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol after the defeated president told them to “fight like hell” as Congress certified the 2020 election results for Democrat Joe Biden.

It’s the second time House Republicans, since they took control, have stood up a new committee to probe Jan. 6, as they dispute the findings of the original panel established by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the immediate aftermath of the riot. That panel, which released its findings in 2022, put the blame on Trump for having incited the violence at the Capitol, part of a last gasp in his months-long effort to overturn his election defeat to Biden.

Trump was impeached on the charge of inciting the insurrection, but acquitted by the Senate. The Justice Department’s four-count indictment against Trump brought by special counsel Jack Smith was abandoned once Trump won reelection in 2024, adhering to department protocol against prosecuting a sitting president.

Republicans doubt what happened Jan. 6

One GOP lawmaker, Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas — who was among those seen at the barricaded doors to the House chamber — called the original Jan. 6 committee a “total sham.” He disputed the eyewitness testimony of police officers who had recounted in detail how they were bloodied and injured in the mayhem as “highly scripted” accounts from “Trump haters.”

“They put on a pretty good show,” he said about the panel.

The Republicans tried to pin the violence at the Capitol on certain agitators, and they portrayed the militia groups who were central to the siege as having been entrapped by the federal government.

Rhodes, seated in the audience wearing a black cowboy hat, was among those convicted of seditious conspiracy over his role. He was among the more than 1,500 people pardoned by Trump once the president retook office last year.

At one point, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, turned to her colleagues, exasperated.

“I am so frustrated with this country and I don’t think I’m the only one,” she said.

“The conspiracy theories,” she said, “are driving me insane.”

Pipe bomb suspect brings new twist

The panel did dive into the details of the pipe bomb investigation, as lawmakers tried to understand why it took federal law enforcement some five years to have a potential break in the case. Last month, the FBI arrested Brian Cole Jr. of Virginia on suspicion of placing the pipe bombs.

Republicans had long believed the pipe bombs were part of a potential inside job — a distraction that diverted law enforcement that day as Trump’s supporters marched to the Capitol to confront Congress.

“I’ve been concerned with this whole pipe bomb situation for some time,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va.

He was among those questioning why bomb-sniffing dogs failed that day to discover the device outside one of the party headquarters.

Cole told investigators after his arrest last month that he believed someone needed to “speak up” for people who believed the 2020 election was stolen and that he was “disappointed” that Trump lost to Biden.

Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., also probed why investigators overlooked various leads that day.

John Nantz, a former FBI special agent, testified to the panel that the Biden-era FBI under then-Director Christopher Wray was focused elsewhere.

“Every resource should have been made available,” he said.

Hageman quipped that was the “understatement of the century.”

Trump’s pardons of rioters raise new questions

Trump’s pardons of the rioters were also discussed, as Raskin detailed how many of those convicted in the siege have gone on to commit other crimes.

Mike Romano, a former Justice Department prosecutor, said he viewed Trump’s pardons as “ill-advised.”

Romano said many of them remained proud of their conduct. “They have celebrated the pardons and tried to lie about what happened,” he said.

Pressed by Raskin about whether Trump’s pardon would apply to Cole, if convicted in the pipe bomb case, Romano said it’s an open question.

“I don’t know that there’s a clear yes or no,” he testified. “And I think that’s a problem.”