At Outside the Beltway James Joyner has a representative sampling of commentary on the events of January 6, 2021. Op-eds from Karl Rove (WSJ), Jimmy Carter (NYT), Francis Fukuyama (NYT), Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux (FiveThirtyEight), and Politico’s “Playbook” feature are quoted at length. The best characterization I have encountered today is from Mark Tapscott at Instapundit:
…a year ago today, a large crowd of thoughtless fools waving signs and shouting slogans a few of whom may actually have believed, overcame a clearly unprepared, untrained U.S. Capitol Police force, penetrated the U.S. Capitol, forced a temporary suspension of Congress certifying the 2020 presidential election results, and did an estimated $1.5 million worth of damage in an historic building full of priceless paintings, statutes, architecture and memories.
By the evening, order was restored, Congress resumed its business and democracy survived.
As I’ve said before my view is:
- January 6, 2021 was significant and the actions of those who breached the Capitol were wrong.
- All of those involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
- I think it’s important to distinguish between a reasonable revulsion at the events and partisan posturing or battlespace preparation.
- There’s a lot of the latter going on.
Just as with 9/11 practically nothing has been learned since the breaching of the Capitol. It’s a terrible commentary on us.
Update
The view expressed by the editors of the Wall Street Journal comport pretty closely with mine:
The Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021, was a national disgrace, but almost more dispiriting is the way America’s two warring political tribes have responded. Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi seem intent on exploiting that day to retain power, while the Donald Trump wing of the GOP insists it was merely a protest march that got a little carried away.
We say this as a statement of political reality, not as a counsel of despair. Our job is to face the world as it is and try to move it in a better direction.
with this important observation:
The true man at the margin was Mike Pence. Presiding in the Senate as Vice President, he recognized his constitutional duty as largely ceremonial in certifying the vote count. He stood up to Mr. Trump’s threats for the good of the country and perhaps at the cost of his political future.
In other words, America’s democratic institutions held up under pressure. They also held in the states in which GOP officials and legislators certified electoral votes despite Mr. Trump’s complaints. And they held in the courts as judges rejected claims of election theft that lacked enough evidence. Democrats grudgingly admit these facts but say it was a close run thing. It wasn’t. It was a near-unanimous decision against Mr. Trump’s electoral claims.
None of this absolves Mr. Trump for his behavior. He isn’t the first candidate to question an election result; Hillary Clinton still thinks Vladimir Putin defeated her in 2016. But he was wrong to give his supporters false hope that Congress and Mr. Pence could overturn the electoral vote. He did not directly incite violence, but he did incite them to march on the Capitol.
Worse, he failed to act to stop the riot even as he watched on TV from the White House. He failed to act despite the pleading of family and allies. This was a monumental failure of character and duty. Republicans have gone mute on this dereliction as they try to stay united for the midterms. But they will face a reckoning on this with voters if Mr. Trump runs in 2024.
I think you, Tapscott and, with one exception, the WSJ editors have it correct. All the rest, the hyperbole, the flat out misinformation, ultimately the histrionics, is pure political posturing.
The exception? Trump didn’t incite these people; he wasn’t there with a bullhorn calling for a surge. Their behavior is their behavior. That’s adulthood 101. See any of the same critics wanting to investigate Biden and others for hysterical and costly responses to covid? I didn’t think so.
Nor could he have stopped it. He’s not the police.
“The devil is in the details,†is often the phrase used when trying to weed out facts or the intent of an incident. It’s usage is particularly applicable in the J6 protest/riot.
Consequently the following questions deserve to be answered:
1) Inciting a riot or violence involves calling for it. When was this done before, during or after Trump’s speech at the Elipse?
2) What happened to whoever planted pipe bombs at the RNC & DNC? Some say it was a ploy to distract police away from the Capitol building.
3) Why was Trump’s request for a national guard presence denied? Why weren’t more police deployed after numerous pleas to do so was made by the Capitol Police Director?
4) Why are people photographed (many times) telling people to breech the Capitol building on January 5-6 not indicted or subpoenaed to testify for the J6 committee?
5) Why did Pelosi reject having the minority leader assign people he chose to be on that committee?
6) What were the identities of the people dressed in black who were photographed smashing windows and opening doors?
7) Who removed the Capitol building’s barriers? Trump’s speech wasn’t ever over before flash grenades, rubber bullets and basic turmoil erupted.
8) Why did Ashlee Babbit’s Capitol Police killer shoot into a crowd of people, with police standing behind her, not identifying himself first and be instantly exonerated?
9) Why did the MSM take Trump’s recorded plea to peacefully leave DC off the air?
10) There is more evidence surfacing of the FBI’s involvement in actively planning and agitating the circumstances surrounding what started out peacefully. Why is this not being explored more?
11) How did it serve Trump’s people, if the intent of the protest was to present evidence of election wrongdoing to Congress before it’s approval of the electors was given, to disrupt this process? Republicans had their arguments, affidavits, strategy all in place, with 24 hours of global showtime available to present their case – with 6 states calling into question the election tallies, giving 2 houses of debate to each state in each chamber. Logically, it was the democrats who would benefit from said disruption far more than the republicans and Trump.
IMO by doing that Speaker Pelosi reduced the legitimacy of the committee, at the very least leaving it open to the criticism that it was a political witch hunt.
WSJ: Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi seem intent on exploiting that day to retain power, while the Donald Trump wing of the GOP insists it was merely a protest march that got a little carried away.
So, Pelosi is having hearings to determine exactly what happened and to propose legislation to protect the process, while Trump lies about it. Same thing.
WSJ: In other words, America’s democratic institutions held up under pressure.
If Pence had acted differently, there would have been a constitutional crisis. One person shouldn’t have the power to determine the future of democracy. If several other Trump lackeys had been properly placed in government, then Trump may have succeeded. Trump wasn’t smart enough to pull it off, but now the weaknesses in the system have been laid bare, and Republicans are blocking any attempt to fix those problems, indeed, taking advantage of the Big Lie to make the problems worse.
WSJ: {Trump} isn’t the first candidate to question an election result; Hillary Clinton still thinks Vladimir Putin defeated her in 2016.
Russia did interfere in the election, and the Trump campaign welcomed that interference. Nonetheless, Clinton conceded the day after the election. Trump never conceded when he lost, but lies about it constantly. Same thing.
WSJ: Worse, he failed to act to stop the riot even as he watched on TV from the White House. He failed to act despite the pleading of family and allies. This was a monumental failure of character and duty.
But, but Hillary’s emails!
“If Pence had acted differently, there would have been a constitutional crisis” — isn’t that believing that a form of the big lie (that was why the event occurred on Jan 6th and not Jan 20th)?
Lets dig a little bit if Pence had crumbled to pressure (to his great credit, Pence did not). A reading of the electoral count act doesn’t give the Vice-President any discretionary authority; it grants that discretionary authority (to object to a state’s electoral vote as not regularly given or to decide between competing lawful slates from a state) to the House or Senate as a whole. So a Vice-President invoking an authority (ignore a States lawful electoral votes) he doesn’t process would make the action a legal nullity. The Senate / House (and remember, bipartisan / bicameral majorities rejected the objections) could remove Pence from the chair and continue the proceedings. And it is possible to continue to electoral count without the Vice-President, given its happened every time an election occurred while the Vice-Presidency was vacant (last occurred in 1952). And beyond that, since a rogue Vice-President’s would be contravening the electoral count act, any action would be subject to review / injunctions by the judiciary.
At the same time, its good practice to reinforce the norm that rules are binding on presiding officers of legislative bodies; (i.e. that they serve first to the legislative body as a whole, not to their partisan fraction). That the legislature can place upon them certain duties that are not discretionary. For example, we have entertained bad precedents by letting Speaker Hesbert ignore rules like time limits for votes. Or Speaker Pelosi deliberately delaying Trump’s impeachment trial (by refusing to send articles of impeachment after the House voted); or actively contemplated delaying sending the BIF for the Presidents signature after final Congressional approval as a tactic to secure BBB approval in the Senate.
CuriousOnlooker: A reading of the electoral count act doesn’t give the Vice-President any discretionary authority
“The President of the Senate (the Vice President) shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted.” The word is “shall,” but the President of the Senate could claim that certain electors are not valid electors, and so it is not encumbent on him to do so. That would clearly be a derogation of duty, but it would still create a constitutional crisis.
CuriousOnlooker: The Senate / House (and remember, bipartisan / bicameral majorities rejected the objections) could remove Pence from the chair
The Congress can’t remove the President of the Senate (short of impeachment, good luck with that). And only the President of the Senate can open the certificates. The Electoral Count Act seeks to bind the President of the Senate and determine what constitutes valid electors. However, it’s constitutionality has never been tested. Furthermore, if a majority of Congress goes along with the ruse, then it is quite possible for the election to be fixed under the pretext of fraud.
Turns out the U.S. has been on the honour system.
You are making Trumps legal argument….
As you stated the legal text says the process is the Vice President SHALL count and the House / Senate can raise objections. The Vice-President has no wiggle room on the matter. He must present all papers sent by the lawful government of the state; or purported from the government of the state.
There isn’t a discretionary authority to not count etc, or choose how to count.
And as I noted; since a bipartisan, bicameral majority existed to count all electoral votes for Biden; the majority would have overridden any rogue Vice-President decision; I think it’s obvious they can remove the Vice-President for ignoring rules as well.
Just to address one issue the people offered to Pelosi were not people who were going to go with an interest in investigating. Their roles would have been to hinder any investigation. Did it reduce the legitimacy as Dave claims? You would need to balance that against the constant stream of leaked lies and misinformation coming from those placed on the committee and their ability to limit its work. Just being able to send info to key witnesses about prior supposedly “confidential” information could have made it hard to have a legitimate investigation. So I think you can make a good case having them on the committee would have made it less legitimate.
“isn’t the first candidate to question an election result; Hillary Clinton still thinks Vladimir Putin defeated her in 2016.”
This remains so bizarre. The comparison is so far apart as to be meaningless. We didnt have dozens of lawsuits and investigations as result of her questioning the results. People didnt invade the capital. I jaywalked yesterday. Charles Manson deliberately killed people. We both broke the law. We are the same.
I agree that Trump did not call for an invasion as he is bright enough to stop short of that, but since it is close to Christmas.
“In 1170 December 29 Henry II said: ‘Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest? ‘ and the next day he was killed, Thomas à Becket”
Steve
Refusing to seat the members selected by the other party, regardless of your reasons, is not a good way of convincing the other party that the investigation is anything but a partisan witch hunt.
CuriousOnlooker: The Vice-President has no wiggle room on the matter.
Well, that’s the only good-faith reading, but not all actors act in good faith. The tactic may yet fail, but not without serious damage to the institutions of democracy. And being “legal,” it’s another unanswerable chink in the mores and traditions necessary to the continuation of the Republic—even if Senators continue to huff and puff about in their togas.
CuriousOnlooker: I think it’s obvious they can remove the Vice-President for ignoring rules as well.
The word “shall” in the U.S. Constitution binds the role of President of the Senate to the Vice President.
I don’t know of any of any other legal interpretation of “shall”.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/shall#:~:text=Shall%20is%20an%20imperative%20command,implying%20some%20degree%20of%20discretion.
“Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word “may,†which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion.”
And officials operating outside the realms of their lawful authority is not unanswerable; its called ultra vires. That is subject to redress by the judiciary.
But in any case, it is why I said there should be a strengthening of the norm that non-discretionary duties of a presiding officer really are non-discretionary.
The point if a constitution is dependent on the restraint of 1 person with no redundant systems, it is unlikely to have lasted 250 odd years.
CuriousOnlooker: I don’t know of any of any other legal interpretation of “shallâ€.
That’s right. But the Big Lie is based on lying when the facts are not even in reasonable dispute. The electors from Arizona and Georgia are not electors at all! They are fake news. Even Pence was unsure of his responsibilities. (Thanks be to Quayle.) So, yes. It could have led to a constitutional crisis if a Trumpite had been in Pence’s place.
CuriousOnlooker: That is subject to redress by the judiciary.
Ah, so it goes to the courts. It’s very unlikely the courts would interfere in what is essentially a political question. But even if they did, the effect would be to delay the count and give more time for the Big Lie to further undermine the process.
CuriousOnlooker: The point if a constitution is dependent on the restraint of 1 person with no redundant systems, it is unlikely to have lasted 250 odd years.
The Roman Republic, which had many redundant systems, lasted five centuries, and most people of the time didn’t even notice that it had ended. Senators in togas kept milling around having long-winded debates long after the Republic fell.