By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Justice Department has removed press releases detailing criminal cases related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack from its website, labeling them “partisan propaganda.” These deletions come as part of an effort to reshape the narrative surrounding the events, with actions including sweeping clemency measures and a proposed fund to compensate individuals allegedly targeted by federal investigations. Critics argue this approach could benefit those involved in the Capitol riot, with some defendants now seeking significant payouts.
Read the original article here
The Trump administration’s Department of Justice took an unprecedented step recently, removing news releases concerning the January 6th Capitol riot and labeling them as “partisan propaganda.” This action has understandably sparked a significant reaction, with many viewing it as an attempt to rewrite history and shield individuals from accountability for their roles in the events of that day.
The core of the issue lies in the very nature of the removed releases. These were official statements from the DOJ detailing arrests, charges, and convictions related to the January 6th insurrection. To suddenly dismiss these as “partisan propaganda” suggests a startling shift in how the events are to be perceived, particularly when the administration that oversaw these investigations is no longer in power. It’s as if the documented facts of what transpired are being deemed inconvenient truths, to be swept aside rather than acknowledged.
This move feels like a page ripped directly from the playbook of authoritarian regimes, where inconvenient historical records are systematically erased or distorted to fit a preferred narrative. The idea that reporting on criminal acts, especially those that threatened the peaceful transfer of power, can be unilaterally declared “propaganda” by a new administration is deeply troubling and echoes tactics employed by historical dictatorships aiming to control public perception.
The sentiment expressed by many is that truth, particularly when it is inconvenient, becomes the enemy of those who wish to avoid consequences. The internet age, in this context, is seen as a saving grace, as the real truth of January 6th is recorded and accessible, making complete erasure an impossible task. The attempt to label factual reporting as “partisan” is seen as a desperate measure by those on the wrong side of history to muddy the waters and sow doubt.
Furthermore, the comparison to Soviet-era tactics, particularly those of Stalin, highlights the gravity with which this action is perceived. The notion of a government actively trying to suppress factual information and paint objective reporting as politically motivated is a hallmark of oppressive regimes, not of a healthy democracy. This suggests a deliberate effort to create a false reality, where inconvenient events are simply erased from official records.
The argument that reporting on the insurrection is more “partisan” than participating in it, as some have suggested, highlights a fundamental inversion of logic. It implies that the act of holding individuals accountable for their actions is itself a political attack, rather than a necessary function of the justice system. This perspective appears to reframe the perpetrators as victims and the law enforcement as aggressors.
This action raises serious concerns about historical revisionism. The intent appears to be to mold future interpretations of January 6th, potentially transforming the insurrectionists from perpetrators of an attack on democracy into something more palatable, or even heroic, in the long run. This is a dangerous game, as it relies on the hope that repeated lies will eventually obscure the truth, a tactic often employed by those seeking to legitimize past wrongs.
The idea that the government can simply “silence their propaganda” by removing these releases is a flawed premise. While official records may be altered or removed, the public record, witness testimonies, and the vast amount of photographic and video evidence from January 6th cannot be so easily erased. The truth, in this instance, has a resilience that transcends official pronouncements.
The context of which party was in power on January 6th is also crucial. The removals are coming from an administration that followed the one in which these investigations and prosecutions were initiated. Labeling these actions as “partisan” now, after the fact, suggests a political motivation behind the removal itself, rather than an objective assessment of the original releases.
Ultimately, this move by the Trump DOJ to remove January 6th news releases and label them as “partisan propaganda” is not just about deleting old press statements. It’s about a perceived effort to control the narrative, to sanitize a difficult historical event, and to protect certain individuals from the full weight of accountability. The hope of many is that the public will not be fooled by these attempts at historical revisionism and that the truth of January 6th will ultimately prevail.