Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman (WY) put former Justice Department prosecutor Michael Romano on the spot, demanding to know whether any January 6 protester had actually been convicted under the federal insurrection statute—a basic fact Democrats routinely dodge. The question was uncomfortable enough that Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) tried to jump in and run interference, but Hageman pressed forward, exposing the gap between the left’s overheated rhetoric and the government’s own courtroom record.
The clash unfolded during the first hearing of the GOP-led Select Subcommittee investigating the unanswered questions surrounding January 6—a forum Democrats have long resisted. It was triggered by Rep. Jamie Raskin’s earlier attempt to spotlight Pamela Hemphill, a onetime Trump supporter who declined a pardon after her minor involvement in what was largely a peaceful protest, underscoring Democrats’ fixation on symbolism over facts.
“I would just commend to everybody the testimony of Pamela Hemphill, who was a convicted insurrectionist that was pardoned,” Raskin suggested. “She rejected her pardon.”
This led Hageman to confront the narrative pushed by Democrats and the media, which claimed that anyone had been found guilty of insurrection.
Enjoying our conservative news and commentary? Make sure you share and tell your friends about us!
“Mr. Romano, did you prosecute anyone related to January 6th for engaging in an insurrection?” she asked. Romano responded, “No, congresswoman.”
That’s when the fireworks began, as a clearly flustered Raskin tried to put an end to Hageman’s probing questions:
.@RepHageman triggered a shouting response from Rep. Jamie Raskin when she asked a January 6th prosecutor an inconvenient question. pic.twitter.com/4N5EpjCcpt
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) January 15, 2026
In honesty, Hemphill’s convictions were for a misdemeanor charge of parading, demonstrating, or picketing in the Capitol building – hardly “insurrection” and certainly not on the level of genuine insurrection taking place against ICE agents in Minnesota, compliments of Raskin’s fellow Democrats.
“So, Mr. Raskin’s statement that someone was a ‘convicted insurrectionist’ is actually inaccurate, isn’t that correct?” Hageman, a former trial attorney, pressed.
After Romano attempted to hedge a bit, Hageman to restated, “She wasn’t a convicted insurrectionist, was she?”
“Would the gentlelady yield?” Raskin broke in. “No, I will not,” Hageman responded without missing a beat. “Mr. Romano, did you prosecute anyone for engaging in an insurrection related to January 6th?”
“For the crime of insurrection, no,” he admitted.
Hageman posted a clip of the xchange with Romano on X writing, “At the first @J6Select Subcommittee hearing, I demanded real answers, not political narratives.”
Gee. How novel a concept is that?
Moments like this are likely to become routine as the new January 6 committee gets underway, with Republicans finally dismantling the manufactured narrative Democrats have spent years aggressively promoting. Under Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), the panel has made clear its mission is to uncover the full truth—facts Democrats buried, ignored, or deliberately sidelined while weaponizing the issue for political gain.
“My objective in this committee is to get the truth, without political bias, of what happened,” he said during the hearing.
Raskin would counter, “The truth is a resilient thing. We’re not going to put up with a pack of lies in this subcommittee and a bunch of conspiracy theories” — which is pretty much what his party has been peddling for years.
Beyond what Hageman laid bare, Jamie Raskin himself is a case study in Democrat hypocrisy. He has been central to the claim that questioning election results or disrupting official proceedings is inherently criminal behavior.
Yet in 2016, Raskin did exactly that—formally objecting to the certification of the presidential election no fewer than 11 times during the electoral vote count. At the time, Democrats treated such disruptions as righteous protest.
Four years later, the same conduct was suddenly rebranded by Raskin and his party as an “insurrection,” an existential threat to democracy, and something approaching treason—depending entirely on who was doing the objecting.
Raskin is one of the most toxic left-wing partisans in Congress and embodies all that is wrong with American politics in the 21st century. It was glorious to see Hageman shut him down.
