What the Capitol riot prosecutions tell us

Understand: When we’re talking about the criminal intent, we’re talking about what the accused believed. That it was untrue is beside the point. That Trump may not have wanted the protest to become violent (even if he did not seem too terribly upset when it did), is also beside the point. The only point is that we have never before had a sedition prosecution in which defendants could credibly argue that they used force against a government facility because they believed that was what the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces was urging them to do. Under the circumstances, it makes sense for the Justice Department to do what it is doing — stay out of the sedition morass; instead, charge interference with congressional proceedings, trespassing with dangerous weapons, and, where appropriate, assault on federal officers. These are straightforward charges, they do not have intent-proof complications, and they carry more than enough potential prison time to punish the level of malfeasance that happened here — which was bad, but was not terrorism. Remember, Congress was able to reconvene in the Capitol that very night. This was not a massive attack, and it did not realistically threaten the constitutional transfer of power, even if our boast that such transfers will always be peaceful has taken a hit that should pain all of us. The rioters will be punished appropriately, but not punished as if they were terrorists who were trying to overthrow the United States government. Yes, January 6, 2021, will live in infamy as a national disgrace. But in the main, it is Donald Trump’s disgrace.
Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement