A year after a seditious insurrection, why won’t prosecutors treat it that way?

Legal experts largely agree that treason charges are inapt, because that statute applies only in wartime (though I think a strong argument can be made that Jan. 6 was a declaration of war.) But history is full of examples where other uprisings have resulted in charges of sedition conspiracy and insurrection, something that — despite ample video evidence and the admissions of those involved — hasn’t happened here. There is precedent. But there appears to be no will…

Advertisement

John Brown, the 19th century abolitionist who led a raid on a federal arsenal to start a slave rebellion, was charged with conspiracy and Virginia state treason, convicted, and executed. Nat Turner was charged, convicted and executed for insurrection for the slave revolt he led. And there was the 1954 insurrection. This nation hasn’t always been reticent to call a thing a thing. It just seems to depend on who is leading the thing, and why.

But if the Justice Department doesn’t clearly call Jan. 6 what it was — a seditious insurrection — and lodge criminal charges accordingly, that allows society to tacitly whitewash and excuse it. A year is already too long to wait for the letter of the law to be followed. It’s up to Garland to decide when the wait might become too late.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement