The difference in the investigations... for dummies...

Let's explain this like we are talking to a six year old 

This is not rocket science!

So it seems like some of the country is very interested in the Durham Special Counsel investigation while others are very interested in the Jan 6th commission. I would offer that most of the American population has only a passing interest in either, but so goes the limited attention span of the general population. What are the major differences here between the two investigations?

The Scope:

- The Durham investigation is a criminal investigation where people have been indicted, there is a real trial scheduled for a prominent Clinton figure, there are immunity deals being offered, made rejected, and there are likely more indictments to come. It is being run by prosecutors and criminal investigators. 

- The Jan 6th commission is a political investigation where there is no power to indict anyone, they are not bringing anyone to trial, they are no cutting deals, and they are doing little more than rehashing the same events for political reasons. Ultimately these are politicians who are planning on writing a political report where they will argue that the probable 2024 Candidate for President broke the law even though he has already been investigated and not charged by our law enforcement.

The underlying issue:

- The Durham special counsel is investigating the Russian collusion investigation of Donald Trump. At issue is whether or not false information was reported to Law Enforcement and to what degree people within the FBI and other law enforcement knew that the information was false. At a low level,  if you falsely accuse someone of a crime and file a false police report that is a crime. Depending on what level of crime you are accusing someone of, it can be a felony. The level we are seeing here involves people within the Clinton campaign paying a variety of people to manufacture false evidence against Donald Trump and then feeding the false evidence to the FBI. According to legal analysts such as Andrew McCarthy we are looking at more than just a false report. He is one of many who believes it is a conspiracy to defraud the Government. The second issue here is to what degree the FBI might have known the evidence was false, but used it anyway. That sort of abuse of power is also criminal and it could all be tied together in a broader scheme.

- The Jan 6th commission is investigating Donald Trump's attempt to delay the counting of the electoral college votes in order to buy time for lawsuits and such to work their way through the courts. They are also investigation any involvement Trump might have had in the Jan 6th riot. For all practical purposes, the "overturning" of the election is political rhetoric. Unless it was done under corrupt pretences (such as attempting as Clinton did to manufacture evidence of fraud) - all of what he did was either perfectly legal or a murky constitutional question that ultimately would have been settled by the Courts (not law enforcement). While there was no crime in trying to "overturn the election" the riot was obviously against the law. The politicians (again) are attempting to prove that Trump "incited" the riot. But rather than attempt to prove it in a legal manner (which they cannot), they are politicizing it. At best for both allegations, the commission can "recommend" that the A.G. prosecute something that he has already investigated and already refused to prosecute.  

Bottom line:

There is a reason why Durham has a Special Counsel and is running with the full power of a legal prosecutor. There is also a reason why the Jan 6th commission does not have a Special Counsel and why it is being run by a bunch of Democrat with two never-Trump Republican politicians. 

Think about it.