Democrats have spent years insisting that January 6 was an “insurrection” proven in court. On Wednesday, that carefully maintained storyline ran head-first into an inconvenient truth—one that Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) forced onto the record while Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) scrambled to contain the damage.
The moment unfolded during the opening hearing of the Republican-led House subcommittee tasked with revisiting unanswered questions surrounding January 6. From the outset, the hearing signaled a shift away from political theater and toward legal reality—a shift Democrats have fought tooth and nail to prevent.
A Simple Question Democrats Hate
Hageman directed her questioning at Michael Romano, a former Justice Department prosecutor involved in January 6 cases. Instead of launching into speeches or moral grandstanding, she posed a straightforward question—one that cuts to the core of the Democratic narrative:
Had anyone been convicted under the federal insurrection statute?
The answer was devastating in its simplicity.
No.
Romano confirmed that despite hundreds of prosecutions, the Department of Justice has not secured a single conviction for insurrection related to January 6.
Raskin Tries to Run Interference
The exchange did not happen in a vacuum. Moments earlier, Raskin had attempted to bolster the insurrection narrative by invoking Pamela Hemphill, a former Trump supporter who pleaded guilty to a minor offense related to her presence at the Capitol and later rejected a presidential pardon.
Raskin described Hemphill as a “convicted insurrectionist,” a label that does not match the legal record.
That claim triggered Hageman’s intervention.
As she pressed Romano for clarity, Raskin repeatedly tried to interrupt, redirect, and shut down the questioning. His urgency only underscored the problem: the facts were not on his side.
Rhetoric vs. Reality
For years, Democrats and their media allies have spoken as if January 6 prosecutions proved an organized insurrection in the legal sense. But in courtrooms—where words actually matter—that claim has never held up.
No insurrection charges.
No insurrection convictions.
No judicial findings supporting the label Democrats use relentlessly.
Hageman’s questioning stripped away the slogans and forced the issue into the open. The government’s own prosecutorial record directly contradicts the language used by lawmakers like Raskin.
Why This Moment Matters
This exchange crystallized why Republicans pushed to form the new subcommittee in the first place. The original January 6 Committee, run exclusively by Democrats, focused on narrative control, emotional testimony, and media impact. Legal precision was optional.
By contrast, Wednesday’s hearing centered on verifiable facts—something Democrats appeared unprepared to confront.
Hageman’s line of questioning didn’t rely on opinion. It relied on court outcomes. And those outcomes tell a story Democrats would rather forget.
An Awkward Truth on the Record
Raskin’s visible frustration wasn’t just political—it was strategic. Admitting that no insurrection convictions exist undermines years of messaging, fundraising appeals, and legislative justifications.
It also raises an uncomfortable question: if the Department of Justice truly believed January 6 met the legal definition of insurrection, why has it consistently avoided charging it as such?
That question remains unanswered—but thanks to Hageman, it can no longer be ignored.
A Turning Point in the Debate
The hearing marked one of the first moments in which the January 6 narrative was challenged in a forum Democrats could not control. And it showed how fragile that narrative becomes when stripped of emotional framing and forced to stand on legal ground.
For Republicans, the exchange was a clear win.
For Democrats, it was a warning.
The facts haven’t changed—only the willingness to confront them has.