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.

THE GEORGE FLOYD VERDICT: THREE VIEWS AMDIST SETTLING DUST

 

Anyone regularly perusing this space knows we comment on current events, usually as

quickly as possible. We’re not a news service, however, so sometimes we think it best we let time pass between a significant happening and having our say. That’s the case with the guilty verdicts in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for killing George Floyd.  On April 20 a jury pronounced Chauvin guilty on all three charges against him. We decided we should let the dust settle, so we proceeded with our April 22 post on Major League Baseball’s decision to pull its All-Star game from Atlanta in protest of Georgia’s restrictive voting law.

Now, the time has come for our thoughts on the verdict. The inherently personal character of our reactions merits speaking independently:

Henry: Sighs of Relief/Hope/Grief

This experience felt like batting practice for a baseball game in which the ball has been put on a

tee or watching a mystery with what seems an obvious ending. No doubt about the plot existed. A video showed who did it and how. Everything was teed up for an inevitable conclusion. Still, though the images had circulated around the globe for a year, doubt about our criminal justice system and white resistance to letting go of systemic and individual racism made me wonder if the result still might mimic so many before – “not guilty” said the jury.

When I heard the verdict on the first charge I breathed a sigh of relief. Wow, we have a conviction! Upon hearing the second, I felt a spark of hope. Maybe, just maybe, we now live in a different world.  After the third, however, grief for the Floyd family and those who came before overtook me. Neither George nor the others were coming back.

Then my mind turned to the pragmatic.  Will law enforcement organizations, particularly police unions, double down and fight police reform efforts?  Or will the good officers become the engine for change the nation needs? That’s in the hat, I decided. Though I have hope, I’m not optimistic. I still hear the wails of the many who couldn’t breathe, but perhaps now we can hear their voices.

Woodson: The Wind Is at Our Backs

Black Lives Matter members, supporters, and sympathizers believe Chauvin’s conviction

represents hope that at last African Americans will be policed as Caucasians are. They believe cries for equality in policing are gaining traction and the wind is at the movement’s back. They believe, as echoed by the biblical prophet Isaiah, “Justice will one day roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream”. They are inspired to make “good trouble”.

Others believe the verdict was unjust; that it resulted from jurors’ fears of rioting. They fear that people of color will continue demanding to be policed as their white counterparts, which in their opinion is unreasonable, given their view of the criminality of black and brown people. For them Chauvin’s conviction is a threat to White Supremacy, and something should be done to squelch the fervency of demands for changes.

Like South Carolina’s Democratic Senator Benjamin “Pitchfork” Tillman, who in 1901

objected to President Roosevelt inviting the first African American, Booker T. Washington, to dine at the White House, they fear the conviction will unleash a torrent of demands for rights that are for whites only. Tillman said that the expectations growing out of a single African American having dinner at the White House meant that “we shall have to kill a thousand niggers to get them back in their places”. Today, the Tillmans of the country may be outnumbered.  The January 6^th insurrection, the rash of anti-voting rights laws, and continuing police killings of African Americans, suggest a number of Tillmans remain. 

I join the former group. Our numbers are growing as young Caucasians become aware of racial discrimination in policing. With the shifting demographics in the country, the fight continues with the wind at our backs!

Rob: The Playbook Fails

I watched the judge read the verdicts and

experienced some of the same thoughts and emotions  as my brother bloggers. I took in the cable news commentary (well, at least MSNBC and CNN). MSNBC’s Joy Reid expressed an observation about what happened in the courtroom that rang truest. I wish I could claim it as original with me, but it’s not, so I’ll give her credit. It best represents my thoughts about the impact of the verdicts.

Having practiced law for 34 years, mostly doing

litigation, and having tried dozens of cases myself, I never fault a lawyer for doing the best he or she can for their client. Every defendant enjoys the right to a vigorous defense by competent counsel.

Chauvin’s lawyer did what he could with what he had. He trotted out the defense police officers accused of killing black people usually offer – put the victim on trial, try showing the officer’s fear of the black suspect, blame the death or injury on a confluence of circumstances that exonerate the officer. The defense claimed George Floyd’s drug use and medical condition killed him, not Chauvin. Floyd, in the defense’s telling, could have risen from the pavement and overwhelmed the officers, the reason they kept holding him down. The nearby, supposedly menacing, crowd posed a threat that made aiding Mr. Floyd imprudent, even after he couldn’t breathe.

Supposedly menacing crowd witnessing death of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin

Beginning with the Rodney King case in 1992, we’ve often seen these tactics employed in trials of police officers accused of killing unarmed black people. Many times they worked, resulting in

acquittals by jurors reluctant to find against police officers.  The playbook failed this time, perhaps demonstrating it’s not infallible. Maybe it’s out of date. I think that’s potentially the verdict’s long-term significance.       

THE BIDEN-HARRIS INAUGURAL: FOR WHAT WE ARE ABOUT TO RECEIVE

 

The last episode of the great television drama The West Wing centers around the inauguration of Matthew Santos (Jimmy Smits) as successor to the show’s two-term president, Jeb Bartlett (Martin Sheen). While riding to the capitol, Bartlett asked Santos about his speech. Santos replied that it included a few good lines, but nothing like John F. Kennedy’s ‘Ask not what your county can do for you, but what you can do for your country.’ Bartlett sneered, “Yeah, JFK really screwed us with that one, didn’t he?”

When Joe Biden delivers his inaugural address, it’s unlikely he can meet the JFK standard either. Nobody has since that bitterly cold day in 1961 and little in Biden’s rhetorical past suggests he has such a speech in him. That doesn’t diminish the importance of the moment or the address he will give.

 

A Different Inaugural

Few inaugurals in American history present the combination of challenges this one does. Perhaps this resembles 1933 as Franklin Roosevelt faced the great depression. Maybe 1864 compares when the nation remained deadlocked in the Civil War. Knowing Biden could do as well as Abraham Lincoln that day would put everyone’s mind at ease.

With the January 6 invasion and occupation of the U.S. Capitol by a mob inspired by outgoing President Donald Trump, our political situation arguably rivals what Lincoln faced. These marauders, having builtgallows outside, marched through the building waving Confederate flags and shouting “Hang (Vice President) Pence.” The House of Representatives has since impeached Trump for his role in the insurrection and the U.S. Senate will soon hold a trial.  Add the pandemic that has killed 400,000 Americans and still rages and throw in the historic nature of the new vice president’s ascent and we have a truly unprecedented situation.

The January 6 debacle means a massive security presence at the capitol for the

inaugural ceremonies, including thousands of National Guard troops, tall fences, concrete barriers, and multiple checkpoints for capitol employees and the limited number of visitors who can attend the festivities. Inaugurals play a key role in showing the nation and the world what a peaceful transition of power looks like in a

democracy. Trump’s decision that he won’t attend diminishes that to an extent, but even the symbolic power of an appearance by the outgoing president pales in comparison with the need for putting the destructive Trump presidency in the rear-view mirror. Biden now doesn’t want him at the inaugural and neither do many Americans.

   

The security arrangements and the pandemic dictate that this inauguration

look different than any we’ve seen. First, thousands of people won’t look on from the capitol mall. Though Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris will take their oaths of office on the capitol steps as usual, social distancing will keep attendance at a fraction of normal. Biden’s inaugural committee has told his supporters they shouldn’t travel from across the country for the proceedings, recommending television or virtual viewing.

 

The Harris Factor

The challenges of the nation’s political divide, Trump’s impeachment, the pandemic, and the resulting economic difficulties will justifiably make Biden’s speech the lead in every post-inauguration news story. Calmer circumstances would likely mean more emphasis on the swearing in of the nation’s

first female president or vice president. Kamala Devin Harris of California will make that history when she takes the oath of office as the 49^th vice president. That she is also a woman of color only increases the historical significance. Trump’s blatantly racist presidency and the number of Americans who would have given him a second term squash any suggestion her election hails a post-racial America.

 

Biden says she will play the same kind of role in this administration he played in the Obama-Biden years. He promises he will consult her on every major decision and make her the “last person in the room” in those situations.

 

The Speech and the Job Ahead

Harris will stay busy presiding over the senate following Democratic victories in Georgia runoffs that made the upper chamber a 50-50 party split. The incoming administration has plenty on its plate. Biden and Harris emphasize how much they will focus on the pandemic. As one observer put it, the coronavirus remains the “boss” of everything and everybody. Until the country gets it under control the things ordinary Americans most want can’t happen -- an economic revival and a return to normal life unfettered by social distancing,fan-less sporting events, and restrictions on family and  other gatherings. The pandemic, the limping economy, the political and racial divisions January 6 so starkly demonstrated, and the country’s fragile psyche make for a long, complicated to-do list.

      

Biden’s speech, therefore, requires substantive and spiritual components. Substantively, he need not provide every detail, but he should offer an outline for conquering the pressing problems, including the need for restoring the hollowed out federal government Trump leaves him. He must convince people he will work for them and show he will govern in a way that benefits everyone.

 

The moment also requires a speech that touches souls. It must offer hope for renewing the American spirit. After four years of a lawless, destructive presidency marked by racial discord and political turmoil, a bitter campaign, and a dangerous, tumultuous lame duck period, Biden faces a tired, discouraged, and distraught country.

 

Inaugurals serve many functions. They

represent renewal  and new beginnings. They also put American democracy on the world 

stage and advertise the virtues of our system. January 6  and Trump’s four years

dimmed our brand. America’s first chance at polishing its image comes with the Biden-Harris inaugural. Even with an 

dimmed our brand. America’s first chance at polishing its image comes with the Biden-Harris inaugural. Even with an impeachment proceeding against Trump pending in the U.S. Senate, a little JFK-style inspiration might help.

GOODBYE TO THE TRUMP YEARS: A WAKE-UP CALL FOR DEMOCRACY

We have learned from history that Fascists can reach high office via elections. When they do, the first step they attempt is to undermine the authority of competing power centers, including parliament or in America, Congress.

                                                         -Madeleine Albright (Fascism: A Warning p. 234)

We haven’t written enough about preserving American democracy. The January 6 occupation of the U.S. Capitol by a mob inspired by President Donald Trump brought home to us why we must write about that subject regularly, beginning now.

Some might think Trump’s imminent exit from the White House and installation of a new administration will assuage concerns about threats to democratic values and institutions. On the contrary, we think the end

of the Trump presidency presents a perfect opportunity for examining what happened the last four years and what Americans must do that will ensure democracy remains our form of government.

 

A Tortured Four Years

We think Trump has been wrong about environmental protection, voting rights, immigration, criminal justice, taxes, and many other policies. That’s not what we mean by a “tortured four years.” No, we refer to his assaults on democracy as a governing ideology.

His attack on democracy as our basic form of government constitutes the greatest sin of his time in office. He has put supporting evidence for that claim on constant display. 

                       

The January 6 insurrection, spurred by an incendiary speech in which he urged that thousands march on the capitol in support of his bogus voter fraud claims while Congress tabulated the Electoral College votes, stands as exhibit “A.” The resulting 

carnage, thanks largely to a massive security failure, left at least five people dead, the capitol building ransacked, and a huge black mark on American democracy and its standing in the world.  Comparisons to December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001, as dark days in the nation’s history weren’t inappropriate. There’s lots more:      

·     The Phone Call. On January 2, Trump called

the Georgia Secretary of State asking that he “find” votes that would overturn President–elect Biden’s victory there. He asked that election officials “recalculate” the returns and give him the votes that would reverse the outcome in the Peach State. Search as many did for a benign explanation or interpretation of Trump’s words, none appeared. It was extortion of the kind more commonly associated with mob bosses and Mafia dons. First readings of federal and Georgia election statutes suggested he crossed the line into criminal misconduct; 

·     Misusing Congress. To avoid the peaceful transfer of power his defeat requires, Trump enticed Republican members of the House and Senate to challenge duly certified electors, leading to the January 6 riot. He challenged votes in Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Atlanta, overwhelmingly black cities, in a blatant attempt at marginalizing the black

vote standing  between him and his effort to turn America into an autocracy. This largely unprecedented action followed a string of over 50 defeats in lawsuits he brought aimed at throwing out votes or advancing unsupported voter fraud claims;

·     Misusing the pardon power. His granting of

pardons and commutations to cronies, family members, and business associates who have committed crimes against the United States demonstrates his contempt for democracy, democratic institutions, democratic norms, and the rule of law;

·     Attacking the judiciary. Trump’s initial assault on a federal judge of Mexican descent began an attempt to drive a wedge between Latinos and other Americans while diminishing respect for the judiciary;

·     Denigrating America’s world standing. By reducing our commitment to NATO,

Trump hoped he could free the United States from democratic norms NATO members must follow, thereby making easier alliances with autocrats;

·     Kowtowing to Vladimir Putin. Trump would not criticize Russian interference in the 2016 election and he took Putin’s side against the

findings of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia meddled in that election. When reports surfaced of Putin putting bounties on U.S. soldiers, Trump said nothing. When cyber experts uncovered a massive computer hacking almost certainly carried out by the Russians, Trump, without evidence, blamed it on China;

· Ukraine. Trump’s refusal to release appropriated funds for Ukraine’s defense

against Russian aggression unless the Ukrainians helped him dig up dirt on his domestic political opponents evidenced his autocratic preferences and disregard for the American constitution;

·     Personalizing the Justice Department. Trump’s conversion of the Attorney General from the people’s lawyer to his personal counsel flagrantly abused his power and undermined the rule of law; and

·     Misuse of the military. By ordering that U.S. troops clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Park in Washington for his photo op, Trump demonstrated the true nature of his autocratic tendencies.   

 

Lessons

Listing Trump’s bad acts represents only a first step. We remain far from knowing all we should about his assault on democracy. As we learn more, we’ll say more about what happened and about what we should do.

We began with former State Secretary Madeline Albright’s observation abouthow fascists acquire power, even in democratic systems. We turn to her book again as we close:

When we awaken each morning, we see around the globe what appears to be Fascism’s early stirrings: the discrediting of mainstream politicians, the emergence of leaders who seek to divide rather than to unite, the pursuit of political victory at all costs, and the invocation of national greatness by people who seem to possess only a warped concept of what greatness means. (p. 118)

We think Secretary Albright’s warning is for us, as in U.S.