The January 6 committee will reconvene today amid reports of discord between the committee and the Department of Justice — offering the prospect of a Democratic house divided just as the idea of a presidential prosecution comes into focus.

Increasingly, the drama of these hearings revolves not around the events of a year and a half ago but the possibility of criminal charges in the future. The gravity of such a development has precipitated tension between members of the committee itself, and between the committee and the Justice Department.     

Officially, today’s hearing, the fourth, will focus on President Trump’s efforts to pressure state officials — particularly in Georgia and Arizona — to overturn the results of the presidential election. Representative Adam Schiff, who managed Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial, is expected to quarterback the session.   

He will do so against a backdrop of drama between the Biden administration and its allies in Congress. At issue is the committee’s refusal to share the fruits of its investigations with the lawyers at DOJ. After a year, the committee has conducted more than 1,000 interviews and compiled more than 1,400 documents. 

The two bodies are at loggerheads over that trove, with DOJ lawyers insisting the committee is hampering its ability to mount cases against participants in that day’s violence and the committee insisting on the prerogative to complete its task, which runs through the publication of a written report of its findings, to be released ahead of the mid-term election.  

The committee’s reluctance to share its materials has not gone unnoticed. A trio of senior lawyers at DOJ wrote in a letter to a counsel for the committee that “the Select Committee’s failure to grant the Department access to these transcripts complicates the Department’s ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct in relation to the January 6 attack on the Capitol.”

In response, Representative Bennie Thompson, the committee’s chairman, insisted “we have a report to do. So, we’re not going to stop what we’re doing to share information that we’ve gotten so far with the Department of Justice,” though he did promise to “eventually cooperate with them.”

This is not the first time that the issue of criminal charges has ignited controversy. A GOP member of the committee, Representative Adam Kinzinger, told ABC, “Obviously, you know, we’re not a criminal charges committee, so I want to be careful in specifically using that language, but I think what we’re presenting before the American people certainly would rise to a level of criminal involvement by a president.”

Mr. Thompson, the chairman, puts a finer point on it, and has flatly stated that it is “not our job” to make criminal referrals to the Justice Department. Other members of the committee are not quite on the same page, with Vice Chairwoman Elizabeth Cheney tweeting that the body has “not issued a conclusion regarding potential criminal referrals.” 

Another member of the committee, Representative Zoe Lofgren, has taken the position that a referral to the Justice Department would be “unproductive” and “carry no legal weight.” Attorney General Garland, for his part, has said, “I am watching, and I will be watching all the hearings.”

He might be watching, but without the materials gathered by the committee, his department could be constrained in  charging Mr. Trump. One trial, against members of the Proud Boys group for seditious conspiracy, has already been delayed due to the impasse.

Under the Constitution’s ban on bills of attainder, Congress cannot pass a law punishing an individual without a trial. The ability to charge rests with Mr. Garland’s army of lawyers.