The J6 committee may have given us a clue by something they did not do during the hearings.

[Beastly Boy]

47. How so?

I offered one speculation as equally valid as the other. I didn't advocate delaying anything. In fact, I offered it as a reason not to advocate anything, one way or another. And the reason is exceedingly simple: based on what we know vs what we don't know, categorical adherence to one position or the other is ridiculous.

There have been several specific instances where you objected to the speed of individual investigations. While pointing to each one of them separately does not constitute the establishment of causation, if you object to the time it takes to complete certain investigations, you will have to object to the concept of due process of law in general. Yo may not pick and choose when due process is appropriate and when it is not. It takes legislation, not shortcuts in administering justice, to change due process. If you find the pace of due process unacceptable, it is not DOJ's fault, it is Congress's falt. it means that the Congress has imposed, by your standards, unreasonable burden on DOJ. You, as voter, are ultimately responsible for this. Elect lawmakers who would change DOJ rules to your liking, then face the consequences of your choices when the new due process is applied according to the new rules, and then we can talk.