The editors of the Wall Street Journal have what appears to me to be a practical suggestion for reducing the likelihood of a recurrence of the riots on January 6:
The anniversary of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot is Washington’s theme of the week, and waves of righteous anger will roll across the Mall. We agree the riot was disgraceful, but then why not rewrite the law that encouraged Donald Trump’s supporters to think Congress could overturn the 2020 election?
We’re referring to the Electoral Count Act, the ambiguous 19th-century statute that purports to allow for a majority of Congress to disqualify a state’s electors after the Electoral College has voted. Congress’s certification of presidential election results should be a technicality, but Mr. Trump misled supporters into believing Vice President Mike Pence and Congress could overturn Joe Biden’s victory, leading to the Jan. 6 march on the Capitol.
The solution, of course, is repeal. Sounds sensible to me.
Before I leave this subject I want to remind my few readers that I immediately and unambiguously condemned the events on January 6, 2021. Additionally, I believe that Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, submitting as evidence that NONE of the court challenges that have been filed prevailed. That leads me to a question.
So far none of the 700 some-odd individuals who have been charged with crimes in connection with the January 6, 2021 breaching of the Capitol has been charged with insurrection. Does the same standard apply to the election and the breaching of the Capitol? If not, why not.
If so, there was no insurrection and claiming there was is mischievous.
Repealing the Act would assume its purpose is no longer needed, which is to have a framework whenever states send electors that aren’t perceived as reflecting the actual state votes, or competing electors are presented. This was a 2000 scenario that the SCOTUS averted by intervening. If SCOTUS adjudicating Presidential election disputes is the remedy, then that should be codified in the statute.
From the Marshall project.
Insurrection“What happened here today was an insurrection,†said Sen. Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, on Wednesday night.
Insurrection also falls under the same suite of federal laws as sedition, and the two can be difficult to distinguish. But it is charged by federal prosecutors far more rarely—almost never in American history. It means, essentially, to incite, assist in or engage in a full-on rebellion against the government: a step beyond just conspiring against it, and requiring that significant violence be involved.
Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher, mounted an armed standoff with the federal government in 2014—his son, Ammon Bundy, did the same in Oregon in 2016—on the basis of an explicitly anti-U.S. government philosophy. Still, prosecutors did not charge them with insurrection, which legal experts say is nearly impossible to prove in court.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/01/08/a-civilian-s-guide-to-insurrection-legalese
Steve
Not mischievous, strategic is more like it. BTW, where are those whose hearts bleed at the thought of someone in the carceral system.
On another note for yucks, flip through the US Attorneys manual in DOJ Reading Room
The reason no one has been charged with insurrection is that such a description applied to this ragtag bunch would occur only to mental midgets or those willing to engage in venal acts for their own gain. It would never stand. Its absurd on its face. Its a political persecution.
Now, now Drew. Mitt was your guy. Anyway, the word organized keeps appearing in he definition of insurrection. The event certainly was not organized. I would call it an incompetent attempt at insurrection.
Steve
There you go again, steve. I call them like I see them. If you say something that I find correct, I say so. Admittedly, that’s a very rare event. But I call it like I see it. I know you are a slave to partisanship. Its not a good look.
I don’t know what Romney is doing other than a vendetta. Bad on him.
It was no more an insurrection than parents screaming at school officials deciding that kids need not be taught how to give blow jobs or that all whites are racist.
The insurrection narrative is for fools and horrid partisans. Period, full stop. It was an ill-conceived and somewhat spontaneous riot. It should be criticized as such, not hyperbolized for suspect short term political gain. You know its all politics because of the absolute silence about months of arson and looting by BLM and Antifa – you know, “mostly peaceful, and non-covid spreading;” real anarchy. They just want to make sure Trump doesn’t run again. He scares the shit out of the establishment. I don’t think it resonates with the folks. They see the joke they put in office.
The January 6th democratic narrative is a political ruse – nothing more. If Nancy Pelosi and her crowd really wanted to get down to brass tacks about what happened, they would release the full video footage that was collected on that day. Pelosi’s emails and correspondence would also be voluntarily given over for the scrutiny she is demanding of others. The people filmed who were verbally inciting people to go into the Capitol building would be questioned. DC cops removing barriers, waving people in would be also questioned. It would be a nonpartisan inquiry, rather than an anti-Trump crowd, who is selectively picking through details that will fit the narrative they are building against Trump and protesters, who were only exercising their right to gather and challenge what they saw as an illegal election.
BTW, Dave, have you read about the latest whistleblower coming forward who participated in ballot harvesting maneuvers in GA, receiving $45,000 for the ballots he rounded up and deposited in drop boxes between 2-5am. The payment was $10 a ballot. Do the math. He also said some 240 people like himself were involved in this ballot harvesting project – something illegal in GA. 5 other states are now being scrutinized for this kind of illegal(?) behavior. What about Stacy Abrams last minute trick of radically changing signature verification standards in GA right before the election?
There are so many examples of irregularities and questionable acts, involved in this election. And, yet all people want to do is turn a blind eye to it all!
IMO that’s a step too far. Protest is protest. Breaking windows and flooding into the Capitol went beyond protest into disorderly conduct which, as I understand it, is largely what people are being convicted of.
As Mr. Dooley put it, it ain’t beanbag. Moves like that are why I’m not outraged over “voter suppression”. Acting within the law to maximize your political advantage is the way the game is played.
Yes, I’d heard about the Georgia thing. It’s suggestive but note that it pertains to the senatorial run-off not the presidential election. That’s been my point the entire time. Suspicions and inference are not enough to overturn a presidential election.
Jan: they would release the full video footage that was collected on that day
It is standard procedure for law enforcement to only release evidence as required to pursue charges in court. You don’t need every video to show that rioters beat police with an American flag.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/capitol-rioter-beat-dc-officer-with-pole-flying-american-flag/2539161/
There are also security concerns at the Capitol. It seems almost preposterous to contemplate that it could happen in the U.S., but an angry mob incited by a rejected presidential candidate could actually storm the Capitol to prevent the counting of the electoral votes. Still, authorities have to consider the possibility, no matter how remote.
Jan: It would be a nonpartisan inquiry
Republicans refused to cooperate.
Jan: the latest whistleblower
The allegation might have substance, but it took a year for it to be made, which would tend to undermine the claim. And while ballot harvesting is illegal in Georgia, that doesn’t mean the ballots were not valid.
Jan: What about Stacy Abrams last minute trick of radically changing signature verification standards in GA right before the election?
Abrams never had that power. You are probably referring to a consent decree which tightened standards for rejecting ballots. The Georgia Bureau of Investigations oversaw an audit of signature matching, confirming the original count.
Dave Schuler: Acting within the law to maximize your political advantage is the way the game is played.
However, the system can be manipulated beyond the breaking point. Autocratic capture has been seen in other countries and in other times. The public ways and traditions of the Roman Republic continued long after autocracy took hold.
Turns out that the American Republic was largely based on the honour system.
That has been known since john Adams:
Dave Schuler: That has been known since john Adams:
Which undermines the claim that “Acting within the law to maximize your political advantage is the way the game is played,” is sufficient to guarantee the continuity of republican government. Rather, there are norms and traditions that are essential to democratic stability.
Who made that claim? Certainly not I. I think that “politics as usual” undermines republican government. But that doesn’t mean it’s not still politics as usual.
I also think that the only way to disrupt politics as usual is to lower the stakes which would necessarily mean reducing our expectations of the federal government. But that’s another subject.
I’m open to alternative strategies for reducing “politics as usual” in the context of the present federal government. What would you propose?
Dave Schuler: Who made that claim? Certainly not I.
Here’s your quote in context: “As Mr. Dooley put it, it ain’t beanbag. Moves like that are why I’m not outraged over ‘voter suppression’. Acting within the law to maximize your political advantage is the way the game is played.”
It’s hard to read it another way, but that voter suppression is just politics as usual in a democracy.
Dave Schuler: I think that “politics as usual†undermines republican government.
Okay, but it’s not politics as usual. There is an ongoing attempt to erode the trust and institutions that are required for democracy to function. The social contract is that losers in elections will acknowledge the winners with the hope they’ll win next time, and the winners will acknowledge the legitimate concern of the losers with the knowledge they may lose next time. Breaking this norm and trying to play the system based on the Big Lie, is contrary to the social contract that underlies democracy.
There are many other ways to read it. To my eye the most obvious is that it’s politics as usual full stop. I’m not arguing that it’s benign. I notice you haven’t responded to my question. Other than lowering the stakes of elections which is what I think is necessary, what do you propose?
Dave Schuler: To my eye the most obvious is that it’s politics as usual full stop.
But it’s not. Republicans are intent on undermining the integrity of and trust in the system itself.
Dave Schuler: Other than lowering the stakes of elections which is what I think is necessary, what do you propose?
The American people have to reject the Big Lie, awaken to the threat, and recommit to democratic institutions. That’s all.
It’s not unusual for great powers to decay like this. The people are largely insulated from the effects of their own bad decisions. They can afford to wallow in fantasies and triumphs of the past.
I’m afraid you’ll need to be more specific than that. What specific actions, steps, or policy revisions do you propose?
Dave Schuler: What specific actions, steps, or policy revisions do you propose?
Just rejecting the Big Lie would be a big step in saving democracy. But a large segment of the American people will continue to believe the Big Lie, and therefore, reject the legitimate outcomes of democratic elections. And that undermines the ability of democratically-elected leaders to govern, which further undermines democracy.
There are a number of reasonable legislative proposals on the table, but it turns out that the specifics are not that important. You can’t enact these changes for the same reason democratic institutions are being undermined.
I have said from the very first that
1) Joe Biden won the election
2) Trump’s claim that but for fraud HE won the election is not supported by the findings of the recounts or court cases
3) the breaching of the Capitol was gravely wrong and those involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
What else?
BTW, I live in Illinois. If EVERY Republican were to vanish from the state, it would do very little to make Illinois democratic because it’s undemocratic now and has been for a long time. It must be 15 years ago that I pointed out that my governor was the son-in-law of a powerful Chicago alderman, my mayor was the son of a previous mayor, and my alderman the daughter of the previous alderman which sounds a lot like a hereditary aristocracy. See also my recent post on redistricting.
” non-covid spreading;”
Mr Call it as you see it, maybe you can point me to some evidence that the BLM protests spread covid. The literature has pretty consistently shown low risk for outdoor activities.
Steve
The risk is lower outside, but not zero especially if you are in prolonged close contact with other individuals.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/gov-inslee-washington-response-covid-pandemic-coronavirus-crisis/281-9349ddc2-cf7b-4644-b008-4bf147b1b01b
“Although outdoor events are generally considered to be lower risk for COVID-19 transmission, five different outdoor superspreader events infected more than 500 people at concerts, fairs and rodeos across Washington, including an outbreak at the Watershed Music Festival, according to Washington State Secretary of Health Dr. Umair Shah”
It is consistent with the most up to date understanding that COVID can act as an airborne virus.
CuriousOnlooker: The risk is lower outside, but not zero especially if you are in prolonged close contact with other individuals.
Marching is typically safer than many other types of outdoor events as people tend to be more widely socially spaced and moving, and many BLM marchers wore masks. There’s a secondary effect as other people avoided the crowds and stayed away from retail establishments. However, it’s still not recommended.
You note several instances where spreading has been traced to outdoor crowds, but not to BLM marches. Various studies have found no significant correlation:
Neyman & Dalsey, Black Lives Matter protests and COVID-19 cases: relationship in two databases, Journal of Public Health 2020: “Since approximately 40% of counties where a BLM protest occurred saw a smaller increase in COVID cases at Week 3 than their comparison counties, it is clear that a BLM protest cannot explain a rise in COVID rates.”
Dave et al., Black Lives Matter Protests and Risk Avoidance: The Case of Civil Unrest During a Pandemic, NBER 2021: “we find that the types of activities that were averted by BLM protests were potentially riskier for disease spread than outdoor civil rights protests: restaurant and bar-going and retail shopping. These risk-avoiding responses to protests, coupled with mask-wearing by protesters, explain why BLM protests did not reignite community-level COVID-19 growth.”