Tag Archives: Capitol Building

TASK FORCE 1-6: Capitol Security Review

Leave a reply

The Task Force led by Lieutenant General Russel L. Honoré, USA (Retired), working at the direction of the Speaker of the House, has published its draft report on Capitol Security Review (March 5, 2021). The work was inspired by the violent assault on the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 by supporters of Donald Trump. The report describes it mandate as “to review and provide recommendations in the following areas: Capitol security operations, infrastructure physical security, and Member security in their Congressional districts, their residences, and during travel.” https://bit.ly/3ldcjbG

As I write, the Capitol Building and adjacent federal properties such as the United States Botanic Garden, are surrounded by tall metal fencing topped with razor wire and guarded by members of the National Guard. This spectacle of failure represents the supreme irony that Trump, the main proponent of a wall across the southern border, is responsible for the construction of a kind of “wall” around the U.S. Capitol to protect it from his supporters. The situation is so fraught that a session of the House of Representatives set for March 4 was canceled based on a “possible plot to breach the Capitol by an identified militia group.” https://bit.ly/3qG6og2

That means that plotting is continuing even as the government goes after the January 6 insurrectionists. More than 300 have been arrested and “more than 900 search warrants have been executed in almost all 50 states and the District of Columbia,” according to federal prosecutors. https://reut.rs/38B5CL7 Investigators are processing more than 15,000 hours of video from surveillance and body-worn cameras during the assault. Still, the “militia groups” are apparently not yet deterred.

One thing not mentioned in the extensive Task Force recommendations is the question, “under what circumstances is the use of deadly force by defenders of the Capitol authorized?” As I use the terms, “deadly force” refers to the type of response, not necessarily its use for the deliberate purpose of killing. Somewhere in the “orders” applicable to the Capitol Police and others involved in federal security there is almost certainly some specification of the conditions under which deadly force may be used. The policy is not, however, set out in the USCP Department Strategic Plan for 2021.

It’s a question that has received little public attention because, overwhelmingly, citizens and others approaching the Capitol have understood that the Capitol Police guarding the building meant business and that disobeying their instructions could lead to serious consequences. The Capitol has, therefore, been relatively safe as a workplace and monument to American democracy.

Until January 6, 2021.

Some people believe that had deadly force been promptly brought to bear that day, the invasion of the Capitol would have ended quickly. It’s true, of course, that deadly force was used against one insurrectionist as she attempted to force her way into the House Chamber. She died. But the assault continued because the attackers were already inside the Capitol in very large numbers and scattered throughout the building as they hunted for the Speaker of the House, the Vice President and likely any other Member they perceived as on the other side of the claim (utterly false) that the election had been stolen. Most of the assaulting force was therefore unaware that a member of their group had been killed. [One macabre observation about that incident is that it did not lead to the immediate retreat of the invaders at the scene, almost as if they expected worse and still were determined to carry out their mission. Or, perhaps, they simply didn’t care.]

In any case, we can only speculate about what would have happened if the defending force had used deadly force early in the struggle. A thoughtful treatment by someone with training and experience in the field of the responsibility faced by each officer in that situation can be read at https://wapo.st/3csLWu7 The article is clear that the existing training for Capitol Police simply did not cover the situation that existed on January 6.

This is a sensitive subject, but it needs to be considered. The draft report notes that, “communicated threats against Members [are] tracking at nearly four times last year’s level ….” That is an astonishing reality and likely is traceable to the constant haranguing by Donald Trump and his enablers, even before the election and continuously thereafter, that the process was rigged against him, rife with fraud and that the election would be/was stolen.

But whatever the cause, the effect is reason for alarm, which is reflected in the urgency that Task Force 1-6 urged upon the various powers-that-be to move swiftly to address the concerns in the report. While the language is, not unexpectedly, a bit dry and matter-of-fact, the realities of threat, risk and security shortfalls that it reveals are far from mundane or routine.

The question I am raising is whether the published policy of the security apparatus for the Capitol should make explicit that any further attempted breach of the building may be met with deadly force at any time. It would, and should, also state that, in bringing deadly force to bear, efforts will be made to avoid loss of life, but anyone contemplating an attack on the Capitol, or any other federal building, for that matter, should understand the risks that gunfire directed at, for example, the legs could well inflict mortal wounds.

We are talking about a true combat situation. Members of the January 6 assault force were carrying weapons and presumably some were prepared to use them. The insurrectionists were responsible for the death of one police officer on the scene as well as severe injuries to others. The combat was hand-to-hand for hours and it is, frankly, miraculous that no more lives were lost. Video of the events clearly showed prolonged assaults with, among other things, a flagpole holding an American flag. It seems that the Capitol Police and others sent, belatedly, to help them were not operating under clear instructions regarding the use of their weapons. The shooting of one invader occurred as a last resort to stop her from forcing her way into the House Chamber where she almost certainly would have been followed by others.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection force has a 117-page manual entitled Use of Force Policy, Guidelines and Procedures Handbook. https://bit.ly/3ld3kqC The relevant policy text on use of deadly force states:

D. Use of Deadly Force

    1. Deadly force is force that is likely to cause serious physical injury or death.
    2. The Department of Homeland Security Policy on the Use of Deadly Force governs the use of deadly force by all DHS employees.
    3. Authorized Officers/Agents may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer/agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of serious physical injury or death to the officer/agent or to another person.
      1. Serious Physical Injury – Injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ or structure or involves serious concussive impact to the head.

The people putting their health and lives on the line to protect the Capitol should have clear policy to follow regarding when deadly force can be used to repel an attack, and the assurance that the department will support them. Citizens considering such an assault should have no illusions about what might happen to them the next time. Clarity will be beneficial for everyone involved.

That is not to say that the use of deadly force is a simple and always clear-in-the-circumstances situation. Plainly, it is not. But the complexity and uncertainty surrounding the use of deadly force is not made better by having no standards at all. Before another attack on the government occurs, the force established to repel it should be given the best tools available for dealing with it.

Then take the damn fences and razor wire down.

 

 

Republican Titanic – “I don’t see no stinkin’ iceberg”

Leave a reply

Republican senators had an advantage over the Titanic command – the attack on the Capitol occurred in broad daylight and was captured on video by hundreds of gleeful participants. The attack, we now know, was planned by some participants in advance. The mob was summoned to Washington by Donald Trump, then the president of the United States, and directed to walk to the Capitol to stop the counting of Electoral College votes that would, at long last, end any hope Trump had of retaining power. It all happened in public view – Trump’s call to action, hours of hand-to-hand fighting with police, the mob hunting for members of Congress (particularly for Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Pence—“Hang Mike Pence,” they yelled) and ransacking the hallowed ground of American democracy. Calls for help went unanswered.

The desecration did not end on January 6. After reviewing the undeniable evidence, only seven Republican senators (Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse and Toomey) had the courage, moral conviction, instinct for survival, call it what you will, to vote to convict Trump of the incitement to violence the entire world had witnessed. The other Republicans were fine with what happened, so much so that many of them literally ignored the proceedings in the Senate trial.

The media reported that Trump was “acquitted,” and while it’s a fine point, this was not an acquittal but just a failure to reach a super-majority for “guilty.” The total vote for “guilty” was 57, well past a simple majority and a historic first. In substance, Trump was found “guilty but not guilty.” In a supreme irony, the failure to achieve a two-thirds majority spared Trump by virtue of the very Constitution that he spat upon throughout his presidency.

Before the vote occurred, I was penning a blog post entitled “Senator Ted Cruz – Sophist in Wonderland,” addressing an op-ed Cruz wrote for, who else, Fox News. https://fxn.ws/2ZfvsQ0 The op-ed is remarkable for many reasons, but what stood out for me was the surprising conclusion that the Senate did indeed have jurisdiction to conduct a trial of a former president for in-office conduct. That conclusion, however, is followed by ““I believe the Senate should decline to exercise jurisdiction-and so I voted to dismiss this impeachment on jurisdictional grounds.” [boldface & italics mine] Thus, Cruz would have you believe that the Senate had jurisdiction but also did not have jurisdiction.

This style of reasoning is typical of the Republicans who have accepted Donald Trump as their liege lord. In their eyes, he can do no wrong. In the rare case where they admit he was wrong about something, they still support him. Absolute in their views about many things, so-called Republican “conservatives” apply total relativism for Trump’s conduct – relative to Satan himself. (Trump’s not so bad compared to the Beast himself, so what’s the problem?) Trump’s hallucinatory view of reality as totally malleable – essentially, “it is what I say it is” – is the Alice in Wonderland world the Republican Party has adopted as its operative principle. Beyond that, it has no principles. Power is all.

That much has been clear for the entirety of Trump’s presidency, at the very least since KellyAnne Conway uttered the infamous line about “alternative facts” two days after Trump’s inauguration. The January 6 insurrection that, reduced to its essence, was an attempt to overthrow the government by a sitting president, at least provided clarity about where the Republican Party stands.

Senators like Rand Paul can still appear on television and with a straight face argue that there are “two sides to everything.” But only someone with no moral foundation would say that. Even a craven individual like Mitch McConnell has admitted there is no evidence that the election was stolen from Trump. But, like Cruz, McConnell, moments after voting against the Senate majority, agreed that Trump had incited the violence for which McConnell had just voted he could not be held accountable. In Trumpland, reality really is whatever Trump says it is.

Now comes former Professor Alan Dershowitz in Newsweek, to offer cover for Republicans looking for a seemingly intellectually plausible basis to argue that Trump’s “incitement” was really protected speech under the First Amendment. https://bit.ly/3pnLWzY  [Disclosure: Dershowitz taught my 1L criminal law class at Harvard]

Dershowitz argues there is no difference between what Trump did and the actions of Representative Jamie Raskin’s father (Marcus Raskin) and others who, in the 1960’s, encouraged young men to resist the draft and endorsed  “the burning of draft cards, break-ins at draft boards and other unlawful actions to obstruct the war effort.” According to Dershowitz,

the defense was that the First Amendment protected Marcus’ advocacy of resistance to the draft, even if such resistance then took a form of unlawful actions by others….The jury acquitted Marcus, and the court of appeals reversed the convictions of the other defendants. They were all saved by a broad reading of the First Amendment.

While it’s remotely possible that my limited access to research has failed to find some relevant authorities, I am at loss to understand what Dershowitz is saying. The Court of Appeals case he refers to must be United States v Spock, 416 F.2d 165 (1st Cir. 1969). This was the appeal from the trial that acquitted Marcus of conspiracy but found the other four members of the “Spock Five” guilty. Contrary to the implication of Dershowitz’s description, the Court of Appeals in Spock did not reverse the convictions of the other four due to a “broad reading of the First Amendment.”

A couple of quotes from the opinion suffice to frame what was really going on:

The defendants here are not charged … with expressions of sympathy and moral support, but with conspiring to counsel, aid and abet Selective Service registrants to disobey various duties imposed by the Selective Service Act….

What we do determine is that the First Amendment does not, per se, require acquittal.

The central question addressed by the opinion was,

Whether … the evidence was sufficient to take the defendants to the jury.

There was, of course, an obvious and complex relationship between the First Amendment protections of speech and the adequacy of the evidence of illegal intent. The Court’s opinion expressly recognized the problem, but it also set out three different ways in which a speaker critical of the government could be found to have unlawfully conspired to violate the law, notwithstanding the First Amendment: (1) prior or subsequent “unambiguous statements;” (2) “subsequent commission of the very illegal act contemplated by the agreement;” or (3) “subsequent legal act if that act is ‘clearly undertaken for the specific purpose of rendering effective the later illegal activity which is advocated.”

The opinion, moreover, did not discuss Marcus Raskin at all because he was acquitted at trial. There is no way to know what the basis for a jury’s decision is, so Dershowitz cannot plausibly claim that Raskin was saved by a “broad reading of the First Amendment.”

The Court of Appeals did reverse the guilty findings of the other four defendants, as Dershowitz said. The Court reversed the trial court’s guilty finding for Spock because the evidence against him did not establish the “necessary intent to adhere to its [the charged conspiracy’s] illegal aspects.” Further, “Spock’s actions lacked the clear character necessary to imply specific intent under the First Amendment standard.”

While it’s certainly  true that the Court was applying the principle of strictest interpretation of law required by the First Amendment, as to which there was nothing surprising given the history of decisions regarding controversial speech, the actual decision as to Spock was based on evidentiary failures.

As to defendant Michael Ferber, at the time a draft-age student, the Court said,

the evidence did not warrant a finding that through other statements or conduct he joined the larger conspiracy for which the other defendants were prosecuted.

Rev. Coffin and Andrew Goodman had a different outcome entirely, but it was determined not by the First Amendment but by what the Court of Appeals determined, rather easily, was a fundamental error by the trial judge in posing questions to the jury designed to elicit “specific findings” of separate elements of the crimes charged, if they had reached a guilty verdict. That approach, condemned rather universally by precedent, ran afoul of the independence accorded to juries under American law. Juries, in other words, are free in criminal cases to do what they will; the Court of Appeals wrote:

To ask the jury special questions might be said to infringe on its power to deliberate free from legal fetters; on its power to arrive at a general verdict without having to support it by reasons or by a report of its deliberations; and on its power to follow or not to follow the instructions of the court. Moreover, any abridgement or modification of this institution would partly restrict its historic function, that of tempering rules of law by common sense brought to bear upon the facts of a specific case…

Uppermost … is the principle that the jury, as the conscience of the community, must be permitted to look at more than logic…. If it were otherwise there would be no more reason why a verdict should not be directed against a defendant in a criminal case than in a civil one. The constitutional guarantees of due process and trial by jury require that a criminal defendant be afforded the full protection of a jury unfettered, directly or indirectly….

Here, whereas, as we have pointed out, some defendants could be found to have exceeded the bounds of free speech, the issue was peculiarly one to which a community standard or conscience was, in the jury’s discretion, to be applied.

The Court thus reversed the trial court as to Coffin and Goodman and ordered new trials, leaving open the possibility that a properly instructed jury could convict them.

Thereafter, the government dropped the charges, ending the case.

Undeterred by those realities, Dershowitz goes on to expand his view of Trump’s innocence with this:

Several years later, Marcus [Raskin] was once again protected by a broad reading of the First Amendment, when he served as an intermediary between Daniel Ellsberg, who unlawfully stole the Pentagon Papers, and The New York Times, which published them despite their being classified. But for the First Amendment, Marcus would have been charged with conspiracy to publish classified material.

Unlike Dershowitz, I don’t claim to know what would have happened if there had been no First Amendment precedents, but I do know that the referenced case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), involved the government’s attempt to stop publication of stolen classified documents. It dealt with “prior restraint” of the press and is remotely, if at all, relevant to the fate of Marcus Raskin.

Dershowitz then engages in a clever application of “whataboutism,” not to mention historical speculation and revisionism:

If Jamie Raskin’s current view of the First Amendment had prevailed back in the day, his father would likely have been convicted of two felonies. If President Trump incited his followers to commit unlawful conduct, so did Marcus.

In an all-too-familiar trope, Dershowitz goes on with this:

I would have thought that Jamie Raskin—in light of his history as a constitutional law professor, his family history under the First Amendment and his own protests against the 2016 election—would be leading the charge to protect the First Amendment. But no! He is leading the charge to compromise President Trump’s free speech rights—and thus the rights of all Americans to express controversial, even wrongheaded and provocative, views.

The English translation is “I thought someone as smart as you would not hold such crazy and disreputable views.” I really hate to see that, perhaps because it’s been used against me by people holding Trump-ish views. If someone disagrees about something, explain yourself, but don’t do the “how could someone as smart as you be so dumb” routine, especially following an incomplete, and arguably inaccurate recital of historical facts about which the author should know better (he claims to have been involved in the defense of the Spock case).

Returning to what Dershowitz labels as the desire of various people and groups to create a “Trump exception” to the First Amendment, Trump’s speech on January 6 does not stand alone. Indeed, in the Spock case, the Court of Appeals addressed in some detail not only the words spoken but other conduct that indicated participation (or not) in the charged conspiracy.

Trump actively invited his supporters to come to Washington on January 6 to “stop the steal,” a false claim that the election had been stolen from him. His public statements, through Twitter and otherwise, painted a false picture of what had happened. More than 60 court cases had heard his claims and rejected them. Some of his staunchest allies, including the Republican Majority Leader and his former Attorney General, had publicly acknowledged that the claim of stolen election was false.

Trump could say what he wanted, but there is no plausibility to the argument that he actually believed what he was saying to the mob. He lied repeatedly to them. Why? The only plausible reason was to stir them up, to play upon their anger and fear. He was supported in this by his attorney (who called for “trial by combat,” a statement Trump did not reject), and his sons addressing the mob that assembled at the “rally” in Washington.

It should be obvious, but speaking at a Trump rally is not like karaoke night at a bar where anyone who wants to perform can take the mic. Trump approved everything. He explicitly stated that the mob was going to walk down to the Capitol and that he would be with them, a crucially important element in the incitement component of the speech. That is a fact that his Republican supplicants would like to overlook but Trump’s assurance that he would accompany the mob to the Capitol is conclusive of his intent to direct them. Even before he finished talking, a large contingent of supporters headed for the Capitol Building, apparently led by the Proud Boys. Trump continued egging on the others who soon followed.

Thus, Trump’s call for action went well beyond merely voicing objection to government action. He explicitly directed the mob to go to the Capitol, leading them to believe he would be going with them. That Trump lied about going with them is irrelevant to the question whether his speech was simply a complaint about the government or a specific incitement to specific violent action that was foreseeable because it was called for by his choice of words, his continuing to lie about the election and by his subsequent failure to take action to resist the assault on the Capitol.

Indeed, the fact that no steps were taken by the Secret Service to move Trump to a secure location in the face of a brutal physical attack by thousands on the Capitol that lasted for several hours of hand-to-hand combat is itself strong evidence that Trump had directed the attack and intended for it to occur. He was perfectly content to sit back and watch his handiwork play out. Statements from White House sources, not credibly rebutted by evidence of contrary action, indicate that Trump was pleased with the violence and could not understand why others on White House staff were not equally moved by it.

A finding in those circumstances that Trump incited the attack on the Capitol does not create a “Trump exception” to the First Amendment. Dershowitz flatly states that the First Amendment recognizes no exception for actions by the president, but his assertion begs the question. Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution.

Dershowitz’s argument that Trump could not violate the law because he was “protesting the actions of other  branches of government” also fails to address the key issue: was the “protest” an active incitement to violence that the president sought to inspire and that he effectively directed to occur? Was he merely complaining out loud about what he thought, however absurdly, was a bad election? Or, was he effectively leading (from behind, but still leading) a physical attack to stop a constitutionally-mandated action from sealing his electoral fate?

In World War II, General Eisenhower did not physically assault the beaches at Normandy, but he was Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces. No person of reason would say that Eisenhower did not lead and direct the attack. Dershowitz’s categorical claim that Trump’s words were protected by the First Amendment would, if true, immunize any person, including a president, from organizing and directing from a distance a violent attempt to overthrow the government and capture or retain power. Whatever the First Amendment means, it doesn’t mean that. If it did, the framers would have created the seed from which the defeat of the democratic republic they risked so much to create could be easily destroyed. Dershowitz’s snarky attack on Jamie Raskin aside, that facile exercise in “whataboutism” is simply implausible.

Returning then to the metaphor I used at the outset of this post, if the democratic republic we know as the United States is going to survive, and we know that democracy is rare in world politics, the Republican Party must now face a reckoning unlike anything in its history. If the republic is fortunate, the GOP has doomed itself by aligning with a wannabe-dictator. An overwhelming majority of Americans who believe in the principle of rule by the people through a neutral system of laws will emerge from the horrors of January 6 with a stronger commitment to assure that such outrages are not repeated.

An agenda to achieve that end should include strong criminal prosecutions not only of the perpetrators of violence at the Capitol but of the leader. The spinelessness of the Republican senators who voted “not guilty” in the second impeachment should motivate true patriots to demand complete justice accomplished through the justice system without political involvement.

In addition to the offenses arising from January 6, we must not forget that the Mueller Report documented no fewer than ten instances of blatant obstruction of justice by Donald Trump. Those cases must be prosecuted so that no future president thinks he or she can follow Trump’s approach to governance with impunity. Don’t forget that Trump claimed Article II of the Constitution authorized him to “do whatever I want.”

As part of that process, but separate from it, the Department of Justice should reconsider its policy position that a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office. The “Republican gap” – you can’t indict while in office and you can’t try impeachments after leaving — must be closed definitively.

The federal government also needs to re-examine the states’ voter suppression tactics, which are rampant in the wake of the 2020 election. While I remain profoundly suspicious that Republican-dominated state governments will give good-faith and fair consideration to voter -expanding processes, a brief attempt should be made to find mutually-acceptable policies, to be ingrained in federal and state laws, that will put a permanent stop to the meddling that occurred in 2020 and long before. Nothing is more important to the survival of democracy than assuring that the will of the people is effectuated through elections at every level of government. The Biden administration should add this to its long list of priorities.

Finally, Americans who are committed to the continuation of government of, by and for the people must wake up, sign up, get informed and vote in every election. Failure to attend to the democratic opportunity will result in its being eliminated. We saw this in 2016 and almost again in 2020.

As for the Republican Titanic Party, Americans who believe in the principles once held by the GOP now must find a new political home. The GOP has been taken over by conspiracy theorists and violent extremists. They believe America can survive as an independent country even as it returns to an imaginary yesteryear in which a huge percentage of the population is treated like property, the country’s best opportunities are reserved for white people and we ignore issues like climate change and the need for international relationships based on shared interest and peace. They often espouse principles that would destroy the separation of church and state, a bedrock element of American freedom and independence.

Those Americans who, for better or worse, still genuinely believe that a country in the 21st century can prosper only with smaller government, less regulation of virulent capitalism and the other central tenets of traditional conservative values must find a new political home. If they choose to remain with the GOP, they are going to be swamped by Trumpers who have captured the machinery of its state parties (witness the multiple censures of Republicans who dared go against Trump during the election and after the January 6 attack). The old GOP is a dead duck, a backward-looking myth-based hallucination. Donald Trump, Jr. said it straight out on January 6: the GOP is now Trump’s party.

I hope that genuine conservatives will reconsider whether a modern 21st century country can prosper, or even survive, if it relies on Trump’s values. I hope they will join the Democratic Party in a future that accepts reality and welcomes change (which is inevitable), is inclusive (more interesting people in a diverse population) and works extra hard to ensure that its children are raised as independent thinkers (not replicas of their parents) who are more prepared to face the daunting challenges of 21st century life, open to new experiences, new people and hope. If those people come over, the old GOP will lose a huge element of its power and become a marginalized collection of white supremacists, misogynists and extremists with little to no influence on American political life going forward.

Some Things You Just Don’t Do

Leave a reply

We should not be surprised that Donald Trump actively incited an angry and delusional mob of his supporters to attack the national Capitol Building on January 6. Among the hundreds or perhaps thousands of laws and norms of conduct that Trump has rejected, undermined or simply disregarded, we should never forget his declaration that “under Article II, I can do whatever I want.” Trump actually believes that and has acted accordingly since he won the Republican nomination. Wednesday’s assault on the Capitol is just the latest, and likely not the last, Trump anti-democratic, anti-American action.

The population appears to accept a certain amount of chicanery as “just politics” and “that’s how things are done,” and other such cliches. Such things have been going on in plain view since well before the beginning of the republic. It seems odd in some ways that evolution led homo sapiens to this state of affairs. I suspect it’s mainly a product of two forces: humanity’s advance (based on larger brains in key parts, opposed thumbs, etc.) reduced the influence of natural selection on humans in ways different than other animals and the recognition that unrelenting “tooth and claw” competition was less appealing and successful than cooperation. Such cooperation led to what we call “politics.” Politics involved a variation of the pushing and shoving competition but without the violence (although assassinations have played an important role to this day). You didn’t kill and eat your opponent, you outsmarted him, often with the help of allies whom you enlisted. Thus, coalitions and on and on. Argument, debates, voting.

Over the decades the temptations of power and money led to periodic excesses of chicanery. We evolved legal systems to address some of that, but the chicanery is so ubiquitous that the legal resistance has proved weak. Americans thought that their system was special, exceptional if you will, and the structures and processes established by the Constitution and laws were, in big-picture terms, sufficient to stem the tide of gross corruption at the highest levels of government. Until Trump.

From the dark recesses of America’s fraught past re-emerged a breed of people who seemed not only ignorant of how things were supposed to work, but who didn’t care. Although Trump was an over-entitled rich man, these people felt a kinship with his braggadocio, his seeming indifference and fearlessness when it came to breaking down historical norms. When asked to explain themselves, many Trump supporters say, “he tells it like it is – he doesn’t take anyone’s guff because he doesn’t have to.” They saw Trump’s apparent hostility to the “establishment in Washington and state houses across the country” as the way to rid America of the “swamp,” the “deep state,” the do-gooders who cared more about immigrants than “true patriotic Americans.”

Trump relished the attention paid to his histrionics to a pathological level. As noted at the top of this article, he came quickly to believe that his election vested him with powers beyond anything the world had seen. His followers came to declare that he had been sent by God to straighten things out, to resolve their grievances, to Make America Great Again. Trump’s buffoonery and incompetence were exposed time and again by the media that he also loved to attack, calling them the “enemy of the people.” The media couldn’t get enough of him and obsessed over every outrage while giving unprecedented exposure to Trump’s messages. He savored insane conspiracy theories, fictional characters and routinely called his adversaries by schoolyard names.

When Trump won the Republican nomination, his Republican allies bent the knee before him, recognizing the pathological attachment of his political base they dared not offend. The intra-party resistance melted away. Senior politicians who had publicly labeled him a “kook,” a “pathological liar,” an “unhinged nutcase,” all begged for positions in his administration and became leaders of the popular Trump Movement, a force within, but above and independent of, the Republican Party. In this world, you showed abject loyalty to Trump or you were “out.”

Members of the Democratic Party and other resistance groups warned of the dangers inherent in this situation, warned of what might happen if an unexpected disaster occurred that would make manifest Trump’s incompetence as a leader of substance. The Republicans were unmoved. The prospect of stacking the Supreme Court and federal judiciary with “conservative judges” and of reversing policies that supported women’s’ right to abortion, gay and transgender rights and all the rest were such strong enticements that the leadership of the GOP decided to look the other way and hope for the best.

The dreaded event occurred, not in the form of a war or nuclear accident but a plague. Trump instinctively recognized the threat that it presented to his re-election and decided to downplay the risk. His enabler went along. The result of the virus that was supposed to “just disappear one day” is US deaths over 370,000 and growing at about 4,000 a day. The economy tanked and allegiance to Trump weakened somewhat while many Americans still capable of independent reasoning came to see the threat that Trump represented. They believed that the remedy lay in the 2020 election. Impeachment had been tried and failed because Trump’s enablers in the Senate refused to consider the evidence of his corruption and acquitted him.

Trump lost the 2020 election by a margin of 7,060,140 votes, and the Electoral College count by 74 (306 to 232). Biden “flipped” five key states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the “battlegrounds” that became the focus of the post-election charade that led to the January 6 attack.

Trump, facing rejection for perhaps the first time in a major way, decided he would not accept the results. He had foretold this during the prior election when he said he would accept the results “if I win.” Well before Election Day 2020, he was vocal that the election was being “rigged” against him. He espoused that position despite openly using his control of the US Postal Service and the cooperation of Republican governors to stack the deck in his favor. When he lost, he claimed he actually won and that his concerns about voter fraud had proved correct. Sixty lawsuits later, he was 1 insignificant win for 59 losses, including rejection by the Supreme Court. All 50 states certified their results, in some cases after multiple recounts and audits. The just-former Attorney General who had generally served more as Trump’s private attorney than as chief legal officer of the national government announced that there was no meaningful case of fraud to be made. One by one, Trump’s allies abandoned his claims. Trump became more and more isolated.

Finally, on January 6, the damn burst. Trump gave an incendiary speech to a throng of supporters who came to Washington to protest his loss. They completely bought his claim of having been cheated. He urged them to go to the Capitol where the Congress was completing the final constitutionally mandated step of accepting the Electoral College vote count. Many members of the Republican Party in Congress had said they would vote against accepting the count because … Trump said he’d been cheated. No other basis existed to reject the count. They would put loyalty to him over loyalty to the Constitution or compliance with the oaths of office they took upon entering Congress.

Trump said he would go to the Capitol with the mass of supporters but, of course, that was just another lie. He stayed in the White House and watched on television what appeared to be thousands of his supporters assault the thin blue line of unprepared, undermanned and overmatched Capitol Police officers. [I will have more to say/ask about this extraordinary circumstance in a future post] They broke through the outer barricades, smashed their way into the Capitol and wandered around stealing objects, smashing windows and doors while preening for the cameras. There are extensive videos of the events outside and inside and they raise many serious questions.

I want to suggest that this was, at long last, a bridge too far. Trump overestimated how much power he could get away with throwing in the face of the country. His “anything I want” approach to government apparently led him to believe it was perfectly fine to send a throng of angry and delusional supporters to try to prevent the Congress, by force, from completing the final step in cementing Trump’s defeat.

It was always going to be by force because there was simply no other way the group could expect to gain entry to the building. If they thought about it at all, they apparently believed Trump’s “immunity” covered them as well, a judgment that is proving to be a catastrophic error of judgment. The arrests have begun and the process of identification of the perpetrators is being aided by large number of people with technical and other relevant skills using social media. The extent of the delusion driving the throng was so great that many wore no face covering and some displayed on their clothing nameplates and badges that identified their employers or conveyed other identity-related information.

The federal government has vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice and a number of them have already been arrested back in their home towns. A variety of federal criminal charges will lie against them. I imagine their excitement and enthusiasm for their “achievement” in Washington is rapidly dimming as the reality of criminal charges and possible long-term imprisonment dawns. Jobs are being lost and families upended. For a delusional dream of some vague power to protect Donald Trump from the electorate, from himself.

One of the attackers was a young woman, a veteran possessed of overwhelming anger and irrationality displayed in social media postings, a devotee of QAnon conspiracy theory and a pure Trump loyalist. For that, she was shot and killed heading an assault on the doors leading to the Speaker’s Lobby in the Capitol. The Speaker’s Lobby is directly outside the House Chamber where the House of Representatives was in joint session with the Senate to complete the Electoral College count. The shooting was captured on video. Other videos show a Capitol Police officer screaming in pain as he is crushed in a doorway by the mob. Another officer died being assaulted and, apparently, maced by the mob. Three other perpetrators died from medical emergencies.

Five dead. The crowd high-fiving as they left, satisfied that they had achieved something. Trump – well, he has had nothing to say about the deaths for which he bears direct responsibility. Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, among other social media, have suspended Trump’s accounts. At long last, a bridge too far even for them.

Meanwhile, the Republican leadership gathered at Amelia Island, Florida for a retreat to discuss the Party’s future. https://wapo.st/3nupioS The Trump-loyalist leadership was re-elected, praising Trump the Almighty as if nothing had happened on January 6, no assault on one of the great temples of American democracy. Repeating insane claims still circulating on social media,

“Some members argued falsely that it was really “antifa” or other leftist groups responsible for the violence in the U.S. Capitol, people present said, and did not believe he had done anything wrong….

Attendees passed resolutions criticizing the news media and calling for attention to voter fraud, two of the president’s favored topics. One North Carolina official called for the reelection of the GOP’s officials partly so the news media could not say the party was in discord. A statement from a committeeman for the officer killed in the Capitol did not mention the president’s role in inciting the violence but said the Republican Party was the party of law and order.

New day, same old story. Read it at the cite above if you have the stomach for it.

So, maybe I am wrong in believing that this was a bridge too far. Maybe the Republican Party’s delusional obeisance to  a criminally-corrupt and possibly mentally unstable president will override all the evidence as it has for the throng that invaded the Capitol Building. The president and the Republican Party that, with very few exceptions, continues to support him appear utterly indifferent to the world-record number of COVID-19 deaths, to the failed vaccine distribution program that was to begin restoring order and health to the economy and to the assault on the citadel of democracy. They appear only to be concerned with maintaining their political power.

In light of that, I contend, yet again, that Trump should be removed from power by whatever means are available. If that fails, with less than two weeks left in his term, he should be arrested as soon as President Biden is sworn-in and charged with multiple crimes against the United States and against humanity itself. His acolytes are beyond reason, it seems, so the only way to deal with them and him is the full force of the legal system. No future leader, of whatever party, must ever get the idea that repeating Trump’s conduct will be accepted as just more political chicanery. If we fail in preventing that, we will have doomed the great American experiment in democracy, ultimate rule by the people, to its death.

Congressional Hall of Dishonor

Leave a reply

Members of the Sedition Caucus, you were warned. You ignored the warning. Your presence on the list below will follow you all the days of your public life, however long, or short, that may be. You are named here because you voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election by rejecting the vote of the Electoral College on January 6, 2021, in violation of your oath of office and the Constitution.

Some of you backed out at the last moment after the man whose election loss you sought to overturn inspired a mob of angry, violent supporters to attack the Capitol. You embraced the Trump con game until expediency drove you to either vote to support the Electoral College results or to abstain from voting. The same is true for those who said they would vote to uphold the results “unless strong/overwhelming or whatever evidence is presented during the debate.” You are just as complicit as those who stood their ground, however ill-conceived it was. So, you are included here under Dishonorable Mention.

This list will be republished periodically until the next elections, and perhaps beyond, in many places. It will serve as a reminder to voters everywhere that you violated your solemn oaths of office and placed the desires of a deranged aspiring dictator ahead of the will of the people as expressed by their votes. This action to undermine American democracy will not be forgotten or forgiven.

Senators

  • Ted Cruz –Texas
  • Josh Hawley – Missouri
  • Cindy Hyde-Smith – Mississippi
  • John Kennedy – Louisiana
  • Cynthia Lummis – Wyoming
  • Roger Marshall – Kansas
  • Rick Scott – Florida
  • Tommy Tuberville – Alabama

Representatives

  • Robert B. Aderholt AL
  • Rick Allen GA
  • Jodey Arrington TX
  • Brian Babin TX
  • Jim Baird IN
  • Jim Banks IN
  • Cliff Bentz OR
  • Jack Bergman MI
  • Stephanie Bice OK
  • Andy Biggs AZ
  • Dan Bishop NC
  • Lauren Boebert CO
  • Mike Bost IL
  • Mo Brooks –AL
  • Ted Budd NC
  • Tim Burchett TN
  • Michael C. Burgess TX
  • Ken Calvert CA
  • Kat Cammack FL
  • Jerry Carl AL
  • Earl L. “Buddy” Carter GA
  • John Carter TX
  • Madison Cawthorn NC
  • Steve Chabot OH
  • Ben Cline VA
  • Michael Cloud TX
  • Andrew Clyde GA
  • Tom Cole OK
  • Eric A. “Rick” Crawford AR
  • Warren Davidson OH
  • Scott DesJarlais TN
  • Mario Diaz-Balart FL
  • Byron Donalds FL
  • Jeff Duncan SC
  • Neal Dunn FL
  • Ron Estes KS
  • Pat Fallon TX
  • Michelle Fischbach MN
  • Scott Fitzgerald WI
  • Charles J. “Chuck” Fleischmann TN
  • Virginia Foxx NC
  • Scott Franklin FL
  • Russ Fulcher ID
  • Matt Gaetz FL
  • Mike Garcia CA
  • Bob Gibbs OH
  • Carlos Gimenez FL
  • Louie Gohmert TX
  • Bob Good VA
  • Lance Gooden TX
  • Paul A. Gosar AZ
  • Garret Graves LA
  • Sam Graves MO
  • Mark Green TN
  • Marjorie Taylor Greene GA
  • Andy Harris MD
  • Diana Harshbarger TN
  • Vicky Hartzler MO
  • Kevin Hern OK
  • Yvette Herrell NM
  • Jody Hice GA
  • Clay Higgins LA
  • Richard Hudson NC
  • Darrell Issa CA
  • Ronny Jackson T
  • Chris Jacobs NY
  • Mike Johnson LA
  • Bill Johnson OH
  • Jim Jordan OH
  • John Joyce PA
  • Fred Keller PA
  • Trent Kelly MS
  • Mike Kelly PA
  • David Kustoff TN
  • Doug LaMalfa CA
  • Doug Lamborn CO
  • Jake LaTurner KS
  • Debbie Lesko AZ
  • Billy Long MO
  • Barry Loudermilk GA
  • Frank D. Lucas OK
  • Blaine Luetkemeyer MO
  • Nicole Malliotakis NY
  • Tracey Mann KS
  • Brian Mast FL
  • Kevin McCarthy CA
  • Lisa McClain MI
  • Dan Meuser PA
  • Mary Miller IL
  • Carol Miller WV
  • Alex Mooney WV
  • Barry Moore AL
  • Markwayne Mullin OK
  • Gregory Murphy NC
  • Troy Nehls TX
  • Ralph Norman SC
  • Devin Nunes CA
  • Jay Obernolte CA
  • Burgess Owens UT
  • Steven M. Palazzo MS
  • Gary Palmer AL
  • Greg Pence IN
  • Scott Perry PA
  • August Pfluger TX
  • Bill Posey FL
  • Guy Reschenthaler PA
  • Tom Rice SC
  • Mike D. Rogers AL
  • Harold Rogers KY
  • John Rose TN
  • Matt Rosendale MT
  • David Rouzer NC
  • John Rutherford FL
  • Steve Scalise LA
  • David Schweikert AZ
  • Pete Sessions TX
  • Jason T. Smith MO
  • Adrian Smith NE
  • Lloyd Smucker PA
  • Elise Stefanik NY
  • Greg Steube FL
  • Chris Stewart UT
  • Glenn Thompson PA
  • Tom Tiffany WI
  • William Timmons SC
  • Jeff Van Drew NJ
  • Beth Van Duyne TX
  • Tim Walberg MI
  • Jackie Walorski IN
  • Randy Weber TX
  • Daniel Webster FL
  • Roger Williams TX
  • Joe Wilson SC
  • Rob Wittman VA
  • Ron Wright TX
  • Lee Zeldin NY

Dishonorable Mention  

Sen. Marsha Blackburn TN

Sen. Mike Braun IN

Sen. Kevin Cramer ND

Sen. Steve Daines MT

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham SC

Sen. Charles E. Grassley IA

Sen. Bill Hagerty TN

Sen. Ron Johnson WI

Sen. James Lankford– OK

Sen. Kelly Loeffler GA

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers WA

Sen. Marco Rubio FL

Rep. Michael Waltz FL