Showing posts with label Insurrection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Insurrection. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 21, 2021

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 RepresentativesMcCarthy 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.



Friday, July 16, 2021

MOVING AHEAD WITH A JANUARY 6 SELECT COMMITTEE PROBE

DEMOCRATS TAKE THE HIGH ROAD AND

DO WHAT NEEDS DOING

                                                
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) has moved ahead with plans for a select committee that will investigate the January 6 insurrection at the U.S.
Capitol. Pelosi named eight committee members and designated Mississippi Congressman Bennie Thompson the chair. She  took the action following a June 30 House vote, mainly along party lines, favoring establishment of such a panel. That, in
turn, followed Senate rejection of a bipartisan, 9/11-style commission that would have investigated the events of January 6.
Five people died as a result of the riot, including a police officer.  The dangerousness and brutality of the insurrectionists become more evident with each Justice Department release of new January 6 video.

Despite our preference for a bipartisan commission, we say Democrats have taken the only reasonable course Republicans left to them. It was a step they had no choice but to take. Congress had to fulfil its obligation to investigate what happened and decide who’s ultimately responsible.

A fierce urgency demands that  Congress find out who bears responsibility for the January 6 insurrection. In a democracy, not moving forward with an investigation of a matter like this would have been a dereliction of duty.

After Senate Republicans nixed the bipartisan commission option, only the select committee approach remained.  Republicans can complain all they want about the “partisan” nature of a select committee inquiry, but they could have prevented this circumstance. They declined the bipartisan commission under pressure from former President 

Donald Trump, who wants  nothing that might pin the blame on the person likely most responsible -- him. Republican fidelity to Trump’s wishes eviscerates the party’s viability as a defender of democracy and the nation’s most cherished ideals.       

 

The Urgency

Anyone who looks at the video or reads the published accounts of January 6 can only conclude that what occurred was an insurrection in the classic sense of the term – an effort at overthrowing the democratically expressed will of the people. We contend those who won’t recognize the events of January 6 as such now stand as opponents of democracy and are at war with the United States. A functioning democracy seeks out and holds accountable people who did what the insurrectionists did.

Fidelity to core American values requires that both

the general public and elected officials pursue full accountability for those who orchestrated and participated in what happened.  The public should, through social media, blogging, letters to the editor, and every other legal means, promote the need for that full accountability.

Meanwhile, elected officials owe a duty because of an oath they must uphold. That oath obligates them to protect and defend the United States Constitution. Those who won’t do that should resign their offices.

No one should believe the forces unleashed that day will just disappear. Trials of some of the 500 people already charged may tell us something

about the continuing threat posed by the right wing, white supremacist groups believed at the center of the January 6 riot. Trials, however, with their focus on the guilt or innocence of individuals, can never reveal the whole story of something like January 6.  That limitation makes the work of the select committee essential. It must find out who bears responsibility and let the nation know. Then, the country and its government can take steps that would prevent a repeat.

 

Committee Membership

Pelosi’s selection of Republican Representative Liz Chaney of Wyoming generated the most attention

among the members named. Republicans kicked Cheney out of her leadership role in their caucus because she voted in favor of Trump’s impeachment. She was one of two Republicans who backed a select committee
investigation (Adam Kinzinger of Illinois was the other). Chaney’s been adamant that Congress should get to the bottom of the January 6 incident.

In addition to Chairman Thompson, Pelosi put three Californians, Zoe Lofgren, Adam Schiff, and Pete Aguilar on the panel. Florida’s Stephanie Murphy, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, and Elaine Luria of Virginia round out the group.

That left the question of who, if anyone, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy would name.

McCarthy led the Republican complaints about “partisanship” in the process. His whining sounded hollow, given the fact he rejected the bipartisan commission, despite having gotten everything Republicans asked for in talks that led up to the vote on the measure that would have created a commission.

Thompson indicated the select committee won’t waste time getting to work. Its first hearings could come before the end of July. We’d welcome that. We believe those unwilling to find out what really happened now stand in opposition to democracy. The sooner Congress and the public can call out
exactly who falls into that category, the better. Are we or are we not a democracy? Congress bears the responsibility, starting with the work of this select committee, of providing us with an answer to that central question.


Wednesday, June 9, 2021

DONALD TRUMP’S LEGAL TROUBLES: CLOSING IN?

In late May news broke that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. had impaneled a special
grand jury in his investigation of former President Donald Trump’s business activities. Since then, it has become increasingly likely Trump and/or his top executives could soon face criminal indictments. Reporting
indicates prosecutors have several Trump confidants in their sights, including his main money man, Alan Weisselberg.  Reportedly, Vance has targeted tuition payments the Trump organization made for Weisselberg relatives as potential tax evasion.

On May 20, New York Attorney General Leticia
James announced her office would also  investigate Trump. A Vance-James combination could spell real trouble for Trump. She has a reputation for aggressively prosecuting political figures.  

The prospect of indictments against Trump’s closest business associates, and even the former president himself, raised the prospect of what a criminal trial of a former chief executive would look and feel like. That inspired differing responses from the three of us.

 

Woodson: Action and the Matter of Process

Throughout his presidency Trump demonstrated 

repeatedly that he aspired to be an autocrat.

Congress refused to act. 

                         

Losing the presidential election Trump incited an 

insurrection. Congress refused to act. 

Trump is a clear and present danger to democracy. But Republicans continue to follow him. It now appears that someone will act.

                                      
Donald Trump’s criminal misdeeds may finally undo him. Prosecutors in New York seem to think they have enough evidence to criminally indict and convict him. 

In prosecuting their cases, they must be careful  not
to deny Trump – or even appear to deny him - due process of law and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Due process and the presumption of innocence  are
fundamental rules of law in our democracy. Trump 
and his supporters will surely holler “foul” at the slightest provocation. The criminal proceedings must be meticulous, solid, and above reproach.


The prosecutors must demonstrate that they believe in the rule of law and not violate it in their eagerness to secure a conviction. If Trump behaved in any way in his business life as he has in public life, there will be plenty of evidence with which to criminally convict.

The prosecutors might want to take a page out  of
the playbook of Jerry Blackwell and Steve Schleicher, prosecutors in the Derek Chauvin trial. Let meticulous preparation and the rule of law be the order of the day.

 

Henry: Smoke and Fire

How does the American justice system handle a criminal defendant with 70 million loyal followers

who believe everything he says? That’s  the key question for me in contemplating the criminal probe of the former president now proceeding in New York. Since Trump’s 2016 campaign began a plethora of potentially criminal allegations swirled
around him – possible tax evasion, corruption in his foundation, alleged payoffs to porn stars with whom he supposedly had affairs, and
more. The list grows through the reporting on the current criminal probe. With as much smoke wafting in the air, isn’t there fire in the vicinity?


Then there’s the matter of Trump’s associates. The names have become familiar – Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, et al.  All have incurred the wrath of the law because of things that involve Trump. Could the boss have been innocent in each and every one of their cases?  

But, Trump was president and that makes this situation unique. Yes, Richard Nixon had a collection of criminals around him, but Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon. He was never prosecuted for his crimes. Many of his associates went to jail, but Nixon went about his business.  Joe Biden certainly isn’t giving Trump a pardon, so the system must deal with him, with the backdrop of his widespread public support. That’s new for America.    

                       

Rob: A Meaningful Moment?

As much as my Democratic heart flutters at the

thought of Donald Trump in an orange jump suit and the Secret Service figuring out the logistics of protecting a former president in the Big House, that prospect isn’t what intrigues
me most about Trump’s legal troubles. Whatever possibility exists he might be called to account for the crimes he may have committed is one of the best things that could happen to the United States.

As a lawyer, I agree about letting the process play out, trusting in the rule of law, and all that business. Trump enjoys the same presumption of innocence as any criminal defendant.  Having said that, the country’s legal system would benefit from tangible evidence that the law applies to everyone. Trump

avoided indictment in connection with the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election because of the Justice Department prohibition on prosecuting a sitting president. We were told Trump remained subject to the law once he left office. Now, apparently, we’ll find out if that’s really true. It would do the country good to know that it is.

Politically, Trump has caused all kinds of mischief since he left office. He controls congressional Republicans who have taken unfortunate actions at

his behest, like blocking a commission that would have investigated the January 6 insurrection. Trump recently claimed he’ll soon be “reinstated” into the presidency, a ludicrous proposition. If nothing else, criminal indictments should occupy Trump’s attention, leaving him less time for such nonsense. Our politics will benefit greatly from such a respite.        


Wednesday, June 2, 2021

REPUBLICAN REJECTION OF THE JANUARY 6 COMMISSION: IS THIS WORSE THAN MEETS THE EYE?

Why would President Joe Biden say on Memorial Day that “Democracy itself is in peril?” No modern president has issued a comparable warning.
Military veteran and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a one-time Republican Senator from Nebraska, suggested a military coup could occur in America when he said, “The real threat is internal.” He added that America’s future is “in jeopardy.” What are Biden and Hagel worried about? What are they telling us?
Are they afraid one of our major political parties – the Republican Party – has become the anti-democracy party?


If not Treason, What?

On January 6, hundreds of mostly white people stormed the U.S. Capitol. They hoisted the Confederate flag, constructed a hangman’s noose, and overcame Capitol police with guns, knives, bear spray, clubs, and
poles. They took over both congressional chambers and chanted things like “Hang Mike Pence” and “Kill Nancy Pelosi.” Their invasion ultimately caused five deaths.

For more than four hours, the mob disrupted

congressional certification of Electoral College votes. Securing the Capitol took that amount of time. In all American history, the United States Capitol building had never been taken over by domestic invaders and only once –during the War of 1812 – by foreigners.


Though many in the crowd wore Trump

clothing and carried Trump signs, some in the right wing media claimed the insurgents were actually Black Lives Matter and Antifa members masquerading as Trump supporters. Some suspect
Republican members of Congress may have helped organize the invasion or at least enabled it.

 

Who’s Complicit?

House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and the ranking

Republican on that committee, New York’s John Katko, drafted bipartisan legislation that would have created an independent commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection. House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy regularly consulted Katko during that process and Thompson gave Katko all he asked for in the negotiations. Still, McCarthy withdrew his support and urged that Republicans vote against the measure. Only 35 GOP members ended up voting with Democrats when the measure passed the House.

In the Senate, Republicans launched a filibuster, meaning the legislation needed 60 votes. Just seven Republicans joined 50 Democrats in voting yes, so the measure failed.

               

Why would 43 of the 50 Republican senators not

want answers to the questions surrounding the insurrection? Who organized it, for example? Why were the invaders determined to overthrow the democratic process by violent means? What were Republican senators afraid of? Why would they not support bipartisan legislation aimed at getting the facts about such an unprecedented domestic attack on the American Capitol?  Something is clearly afloat.

One obvious answer lies in the control Donald Trump still exerts over the base of the Republican


Party. In controlling that base, he controls members of Congress it elects. “He has a grip over politicians because he has a grip over voters,” says Carol Leonnig, author of Zero Fail: The Rise and
Fall of the Secret Service. These elected officials want to maintain their offices  and the benefits that go with serving the interests of movement conservatism. An interlocking set of institutions and alliances wins elections by stoking cultural and racial anxiety while using its power in pushing an elitist economic agenda, as  Paul Krugman writes in Arguing with Zombies. Since Republicans want to regain control of the House and Senate, they know they can’t do so without the white lemming that makes up the Republican base.

In the wake of the GOP’s rejection of the January 6

commission measure, former Trump national security adviser Michal Flynn, once a three-star general in the U.S. Army, told a QAnon conference a military coup “should happen” in the United States. Flynn referred to events in Myanmar, where the military overthrew a democratically elected government on the basis of unproven allegations of voter fraud. Other similarly disturbing statements from Trump supporters haven’t gotten the attention Flynn got, but it appears treasonous comments are becoming common place among Republicans and Trump supporters.

 

So What’s the Bargain?

Lyndon Johnson, the nation’s 36th president, once said, “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

Donald Trump ran for president in 2016 as the

champion of the little guy. His only significant legislative achievement, however, was a tax cut for the rich that ripped a hole in the social safety net his blue-collar supporters need. So, what do those supporters get out of the deal? Mostly, it seems, what President Johnson told us – a chance to look down on someone.      

Trump no longer pretends he’s going to make life better for working class whites in his base. They get xenophobic diatribes and racist venom directed at blacks, browns, and Asians but not much else. In the final analysis, Trump gives them someone they can look down on. Meantime, with the support of that base, the Republican Party has become the anti-democracy party. It seeks to deprive all but white people of the benefits of democracy. That’s the Faustian bargain. So they can look down on blacks, browns, Asians, and other out groups, Trump supporters discard democracy, with the complicity of their leaders.

So, we ask again – what do Biden and Hagel know? If we ignore the clear and present danger this “deal,” this “bargain” Trump’s supporters and GOP leaders have struck, we could all lose.