THE JANUARY 6 INSURRECTION INVESTIGATION: WHERE WE STAND

Investigations into the January 6 insurrection plod

along with three unmistakable  characteristics. In some ways, these characteristics typify and symbolize the state of our politics. They show the strengths and weaknesses of American democracy in 2021.

·     Democrats and a few brave Republicans in Congress keep moving methodically toward uncovering the truth, using tried and true tools and processes that fit the circumstances.

·     The courts are handling January 6 prosecutions as we’d expect – on a case-by-case basis, balancing the societal interest in holding those responsible accountable with individual rights afforded every criminal defendant, despite claims those  defendants are political prisoners.

·     Republican politicians stand in the way. The fact that’s happening –as odd as it is – represents a good starting place for an evaluation of where the investigation stands, nearly nine months after the deadly attack on the capitol.

 

The GOP Strategy: You Didn’t Really See 

WhatYou Thought You Saw

One remarkable thing stands out about the January 6 insurrection – we saw it on television.Republicans, however, continue their effort at convincing Americans it wasn’t what it looked like. In addition to outlandish statements from Republican members ofCongress about capitol rioters resembling tourists, the overall GOP strategy rests on the notion that if Republicans keep saying there’s nothing worth seeing, Americans will agree and lose interest.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy probably had that in mind when he threatened telecomcompanies asked to preserve phone records. Those records might show that Republican members of Congress helped facilitate the attack. McCarthy said those companies shouldn’t comply with document requests made by the bipartisan House Select Committee that’s conducting a probe into January 6. He claimed complying would violate federal law andRepublicans would remember that, presumably with dire consequences, if and when the GOP retakes the House of Representatives. McCarthy no doubt wants to minimize the importance of the investigation and make complying not normal. After all, what people thought they saw wasn’t big a deal. Wasn’t much to see, right?

Then there’s the matter of prematurely exonerating former President Donald Trump. Select CommitteeChairman Bennie Thompson and Vice Chair Liz Cheney, early in September, dismissed as “baseless” McCarthy’s claim that various federal agencies, including the Justice Department, had concluded Trump didn’t incite or provoke the January 6 violence. Many reasons exist for believing he did. It appears McCarthy thought he could give the public another reason for seeing the investigation as overblown and unnecessary. There’s just not much there, right?

 

Democrats (and two Republicans) Keep Doing

the Right Thing

While the Republican side show and misinformation campaign continue, the Select

Committee keeps moving the investigation forward methodically.  Federal agencies and private companies have now responded to the committee’s first round of requests for documents. Thompson indicated the panel needs more information from social media companies. Documents the committee wants could show the involvement of Trump, White House aides, Trump family members, and GOP legislators in the planning and execution of the insurrection.

                                    

It’s known, for example, that Trump talkedon January 6 with several Republican members of Congress while the insurrection remained in progress.  If it takes a little longer to get the documents that may lead to confirmation of the substance of those communications, so be it. Tracking down such facts requires painstaking investigation and analysis. The committee is doing that, as it should, using tools common to this kind of work. If the president of the United States committed treason against the American government, we want to know the details of that, right?

 

The Courts and Their Balancing Act

Some Americans no doubt would prefer the criminal cases against the January 6 insurrectionists move faster. More than 600 defendants have been charged with various crimes in connection with the attack. Most of them are not being held in jail while they await trial.  Some, however, have had their release conditions revoked because judges have concluded, in individual cases, that those defendants pose a threat. One, a former police officer, bought 37 guns after his arrest. That individual disrupted a court hearing and accosted a probation officer. A magistrate judge decided he should remain in jail.

That situation demonstrates how courts have balanced individual rights and concerns about

January 6 defendants who continue creating havoc. That’s the nature of the criminal justice system and things are likely to continue moving along that way for a long time to come. Meantime, Trump supporters and far rights groups spent a weekend demonstrating in Washington and elsewhere claiming the insurrectionists were just protesters exercising their constitutional rights and are being held wrongfully. Oh, really?

                                      

As much as everyone might hope the process of investigating January 6 and holding those responsible accountable might proceed differently or move faster, the current state of affairs seems like what we’ll have for a while. Republican

politicians have shown no interest in unearthing what happened. McCarthy once said the GOP would conduct its own investigation and seek “real answers.” No evidence exists that’s happening now or that it will happen. McCarthy and other Republicans

will likely continue doing  what they’re doing now – getting in the way, making disingenuous or outright false statements, and claiming nothing important happened.

Meantime, the Select Committee, which includes

only two Republicans, and the courts will keep

doing what they’re doing -- their jobs.

WASHINGTON, D.C.: TIME TO MAKE IT THE 51ST STATE

The issue of statehood for Washington, D.C.  has resurfaced with new urgency. This year,the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, as in 2020, passed legislation making the District of Columbia  the 51^st state. Prospects for passage in the almost evenly divided Senate aren’t good, making it unlikely the country will get its first new state in 62 years.

We decided we should tackle the issue because (1) the history isn’t well understood and (2) the matter has become so entangled with racially-tinged partisan politics, it deserves examination in the context of the country’s social justice/racial equality

discussion. Though we each support D.C. statehood, we don’t come  at the issue from the same perspective, so we’ll offer different approaches.   

 

Rob and Henry:  An Idea Whose Time Has 

Come

Why hasn’t Washington, D.C. been a state all along? We mostly can thank James Madison. He contended in Federalist No. 43 that for its own maintenance and safety, the nation’s capital should remain separate and distinct from any other state. He feared “an imputation of awe or influence” dishonorable and unsatisfactory to the other states in the union.

Fair enough. Maybe that rationale made

sense in the late 1700s when the exercise of power by the few people living in the nation’s capital might bring down on them the wrath of the other states. That hardly seems likely now, given the strength of the American military and the difficulty the states would have in taking unified action against Washington.

Opponents of D.C. statehood hardly ever trot out Madison’s argument now. They rely on tradition (that’s how it’s always been), nonsense like Washington’s small geographical size and lack of certain “amenities” (one opponent noted it doesn’t have a landfill), and blatant political concerns (like fear of adding two Democratic senators).

We find the history worth studying because it also shows Americans understood from the

beginning the fundamental unfairness of subjecting Washington’s citizens to the same taxes, military service obligations, and other federally imposed duties the rest of us have, but without representation in Congress (Washington has a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives, but no representation at all in the U. S. Senate). 

Early in the country’s history political pundits recognized the problem. Augustus Woodward, writing in 1801 under the name Epaminondas, suggested giving Washington one senator and House seats based on population. Over 150 constitutional amendments and  bills have

been proposed since that would allow Washington representation in Congress. Since the mid-1980s, members of Congress have offered more than a dozen statehood bills. Until the 2020 and 2021 measures that passed the House, the bills failed. Most never got a vote in either chamber.

                                      

Support for D.C. statehood has become imbedded in the Democratic Party’s agenda. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, the last three Democratic presidents, each endorsed the idea. In November 2016, 79% of D.C. residents voted ‘yes’ on a statehood referendum.

            

As we noted, the D.C. statehood issue now

mostly turns on race and party politics. Washington’s population is  about 47% black and the city votes overwhelmingly Democratic in presidential elections. Republicans who oppose D.C. statehood will talk about political “imbalance.” Most won’t, however, come out and say they just don’t want two more black Democratic senators, even if race in many cases underlies their opposition. 

               

We have a hard time seeing a basis for

opposing D.C.  statehood, given the fairness issue -- we did fight a war with England over ‘taxation without representation,’ didn’t we? As for Washington’s characteristics, while it would be the smallest state geographically, it wouldn’t

have the smallest population (fewer people live in Vermont and Wyoming). It would,  however, have the highest median household income among the states, the highest per capita GDP, and the best educated populace, since almost 60% of its residents hold a bachelor’s degree and 34% have graduate degrees. This is an idea whose time has come.                

Woodson Has His Say

The District of Columbia (D.C.) consists of 712,000 U.S. Citizens – 45.1 percent black, 42.2 white, 5.2 Hispanic, 4.1 percent Asian, 0.2 percent Native American and Alaska Native, 0.1 percent Pacific Islander and 3.1 percent from two or more races. All are bound by the Constitution to fight the country’s wars and pay taxes. There are more residents in D.C. than are in Wyoming and Vermont. D.C’s

population is practically equal to that of Alaska, and North Dakota. Each of these states has two senators and one representative in Congress. Because D.C. is not a state, it has no senators or voting representative in Congress.

Should D.C. be granted Statehood? The U. S. House of Representatives thinks so. In April, it voted 208 – 216 to grant D.C. Statehood. Now it must get through the Senate.

            

Granting D.C. Statehood has the benefit of giving this diverse population what they have voted for through a free and fair election. In a 2016 referendum, 79 % of D.C’s residents voted for Statehood. The principle of  “one

man, one vote” should be respected. Granting D.C. Statehood would say to other countries around the world that America believes in democracy no matter the racial makeup of the constituency. Also, because of the diversity of the constituency (the most diverse in the country) D.C. would serve as secure senatorial seats for racial progressives to advance policy discussions and legislation on race, ethnicity, and nationality. Because these officials are almost certain to be persons of color,  it offers the country the opportunity to regularly have brown and black 

faces in high places. The

country could use more of this symbolism. While 

this representation would be more than mere symbolism, symbolism does matter. That would be good for us and our children.

GENDER AND 2020 REVISITED: THREE MEN, ONE WOMAN REMAINING

One of a group of three men and one woman will likely win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. Former Vice  

President Joe Biden, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren maintain the leads they’ve held for months in national and state polls. South Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg surged recently in Iowa, so we’re including him. We know late runs happen, like John Kerry’s in 2004 when he came from far behind, won Iowa and rolled to the nomination.  Something

unexpected could occur, but a betting person would pick Biden, Sanders, Warren, or Buttigieg.

Note that only one woman, Warren, retains much of a chance at getting nominated, despite the fact six women entered the race. We pointed out their presence in a February 2019 post on the possibility the United States in 2020 might finally elect a woman president or vice president.  The vice presidency remains in play, but Warren now seems the only realistic possibility for a female president. So, what’s happened with the other women candidates? 

The Hillary Effect

We recognize perhaps Americans “aren’t ready” for a woman president, a quaint notion in 2019, but worth discussing until the country

elects a woman. In February, we cited generic polling suggesting five percent of the electorate won’t ever vote for a woman. We questioned that, noting pollsters asked the question in the abstract, eliminating nuances and quirks of individual candidates and races. 

No one can say if that five percent, or whatever number of never-a-woman voters live out there, doomed 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Because of Clinton’s loss, some Democrats believe the party shouldn't nominate a woman in 2020. Clinton exhibited definite weakness with male voters, losing 52-41 (62-32 among white men). She won the overall women’s vote, 52-41, because black and Hispanic women gave her 98% and 67% of their votes respectively. White women supported Donald Trump, 47-45, despite his bragging about grabbing women by their genitals.

Hillary Clinton carried lots of baggage, from anger over Wall Street speeches to suspicions about her role in the Clinton Foundation to the e-mail saga. How much each of those things, and the actions of former FBI Director James Comey, played in the outcome no one can say. Clinton won the popular vote, 48-46, but gender could have cost her the election. 

A Story with Every Candidate

A football coach we know often says there’s a story with every recruit he gets close on but doesn’t sign. So, is there a story, beyond gender, with every female 2020 candidate who won’t get nominated? Take New York Senator Kirstin Gillibrand, who began with a  big war chest and bright prospects, but went nowhere. Was it gender?  Or, did resentment in Democratic circles over her aggressive role in forcing Minnesota’s Al Franken out of the U.S. Senate on sexual harassment charges

torpedo her campaign?  Or was it her high-pitched voice that sometimes made her sound like former Vermont Governor Howard Dean in his 2004 scream?

California Senator Kamala Harris remains in the race but has faded since a summer high generated by her calculated first debate attack on Biden. As we’ve wondered, has her sometimes snarky verbal style worn thing? Does her history as a prosecutor who put many black people in jail keep her from catching on with black voters?

Spiritualist author Mary Ann Williamson got laughs and had a few good applause lines in the early debates, but never was a serious candidate. Obscure Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard always was a long shot and her campaign now seems on its last leg.  Are there people on the mainland who don’t fully grasp Hawaii’s status as a state?  

 

We find harder explaining what’s happened with Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar. She too remains in the race and has qualified for the December debate. Her last debate performance generated an infusion of cash 

and excellent press. Still, she lags in the polls and hasn’t broken through in Iowa, the state next door to her Minnesota home base and a place where her reach-out-to-the-other side history should play well among centrist Democrats.

 

We wonder if Klobuchar ever really recovered from early stories alleging she mistreated her staff. That returns us to whether women receive different scrutiny in politics than men. Would a male candidate accused of bad behavior toward his staff get roasted the way Klobuchar did? Might instead he get credit for toughness and efficiency?

It’s possible the reaction to Klobuchar’s alleged bad acts demonstrates a fundamental

truth about American politics. At the highest levels, women don’t do as well in seeking executive offices as they do in running for legislative seats. While 25 women serve in the U.S. Senate, only nine currently hold governorships. Maybe Americans now accept women as legislators since, in Congress, a woman doesn’t run anything except her own office (with apologies to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi). When women “crack the whip” as executives, perhaps people recoil.

                                            

What About Warren?

The difficulty 2020 women candidates have had naturally makes us ask why Warren has done so well. Her detailed policy proposals and a disciplined campaign

that has never gotten distracted from its message offer possible explanations. Her age-defying energy on the stump hasn’t hurt. Maybe it’s no more than what one CNN commentator observed after the second debate – as a campaigner, she’s just the best athlete on the field, regardless of gender. In spite of all that works

against female candidates in 2020, her unique qualities might mean the country finally break the glass ceiling and puts a person with two X chromosomes in the oval office.        

LOOKING AT 2020 BEYOND CANDIDATES: WHAT’S REALLY AT STAKE

A clear distinction has emerged among the three of us in terms of our preferences in the race for the 2020 Democratic

presidential         nomination. We’ve realized the reasons for those differences go beyond merely liking one candidate’s health plan over another’s. What each of us wants in a 2020 Democratic standard bearer reflects our view of where this country should go politically and culturally in the next few years and what the 2020 election stands for as a marker in our politics. Here we offer a first look at that dichotomy (or perhaps, in our case, a trichotomy). We recognize explaining all this may require more than one 980-word blog post.

Woodson:  A Time for Bold Action

The problems we face require more than snip-around-the-edges incrementalism. We need reform of our immigration laws – specifically a change to our family separation policy; a health care system that makes health care affordable to all. The Trump tax cuts for

multi-millionaires must be rolled back. Those revenues should be devoted to development of our roads, bridges, and schools. Our children should have an opportunity for a vocational or college education, similar to how all Americans are now afforded a public primary and secondary education. The criminal justice system  should

be reformed so that charges and sentences are not influenced by the defendant’s ethnicity or economic status.

In convincing some Caucasian Americans their enemies are undeserving black and brown people, President Trump lowered the taxes of the rich and further divided the nation on the basis of race, national origin, and social strata. It is time to address the concerns of all Americans.  These objectives are not inconsistent with Rob’s desires for the nation. 

The interests to which I refer should not wait. Incrementalism has historically meant that the

needs of people of color - namely African Americans - must wait. Roosevelt’s New Deal was good for most white Americans, but in too many instances came at the expense of blacks. Roosevelt even refused to support an anti-lynching bill because he wanted southern white congressman to sup-

port his New Deal legislation. It is time to look out for all our citizens. The country’s leadership must be bold and “walk and chew gum at the same time”.  I do not agree with Rob’s notion that moving forward with a progressive agenda will make the fight for President’s Obama Affordable Care Act look like a “sixth-grade playgroud skirmis". The grade playground skirmish”. The legislation to make these changes has already been passed in the House of Representatives. It just needs to be passed in the Senate and signed by the President. In any case some goals are worth the skirmishes.  

Rob: Get Back to Normal First

While I share most (not all) of Woodson’s policy objectives, I believe the next president has a more pressing obligation. She or he must reinstate normalcy after the disaster of the Trump presidency. I see three things as essential: (1) restore respect for the rule of law; (2) operate the federal government without scandal and daily turmoil; and (3) repair our alliances around the world, thereby protecting our national security in a way consistent with our values and those of our allies.

Woodson’s agenda comes with two significant risks. First, a president seeking enactment of many of these proposals will embroil the nation in bitter partisan wrangling that will make the conflict over President Obama’s effort at passing the Affordable Care Act seem like a sixth-grade playground skirmish. Second, the political

backlash will likely consume that president and make him or her a one termer. Keeping a Democrat in the White House for at least eight years so we can flip the Supreme Court is much too important to sacrifice for the possibility of pipe dream policy proposals that will likely never become law.  For the most part, I’m with my brother Walker on where he wants to go, but first things first.   

Henry: Oh, I See What you’re Saying

Rob likes telling the story of one his first-year law professors who had the admirable quality of patiently listening to mostly incorrect answers given by students called on in class by gently telling them, “Oh, I see what you’re saying.” Professor Smith then steered the class to the right answer by picking out a few things the erring student said and weaving the correct answer into his response. I feel that’s the appropriate reaction to my colleagues. I fear they’re both right and both wrong and I should guide them both to a better place.

I wonder if where Woodson thinks America should go now and where Rob wants to go are that different. Will, fifty years from now,

America look that different under one vision than the other? Rob acknowledges he shares most of Woodson’s policy prescriptions (as do I). He just thinks we have more pressing problems now, that the house is burning down and putting out the fire takes precedence over building a new house.  But, he admits, the new house he’d build looks much like the house Woodson thinks we should start on now. 

 

The danger in Woodson’s do-it-now approach

lies in the risks Rob identifies – turmoil and potential backlash. The danger in Rob’s incrementalism lies in the injustice of putting off things that keep get-

ting put off.  As Martin Luther King, Jr told white ministers in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, the well-meaning moderate advocating patience often poses the greatest obstacle to justice. Civil rights couldn’t wait and some of the things Woodson thinks we should tackle now shouldn’t wait either.

 

Endless Conversation

We’ve only scratched the surface of this topic. Exploring ideas and differences like this forms the rationale for why we do this each week. Our masthead says “Endless Conversation.” The need for exploring topics like this demonstrates why that’s more than a slogan.