Jan. 6: The Great Interruption

Shares

It was the Great Interruption rather than the Great Insurrection against the U.S. government on Jan. 6, 2021, writes Joe Lauria.

Trump Supporters at Union Station Columbus Circle along 1st Street at Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington DC on Wednesday morning, 6 Jan. 6, 2021 (Elvert Barnes Photography/Wikimedia Commons)

By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News

In a column published in Consortium News on March 6, Chris Hedges wrote that the U.S. federal government’s criminal investigation against hundreds of participants in the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol is polarizing the country and shredding civil liberties. 

Hedges called it a “judicial lynching against many of those who participated in the Jan. 6 events, a lynching that is mandating years in pretrial detention and prison for misdemeanors. Once rights become privileges, none of us are safe.”  He wrote:

“At least 1,003 people have been arrested and charged so far for participation in events on Jan. 6, with 476 pleading guilty, in what has been the largest single criminal investigation in U.S. history, according to analysis by Business Insider. …

While a few of the organizers of the Jan. 6 protest such as Stewart Rhodes, who founded Oath Keepers, may conceivably be guilty of sedition, and even this is in doubt, the vast majority of those caught up in the incursion of the Capitol did not commit serious crimes, engage in violence or know what they would do in Washington other than protest the election results.  … 

Richard Barnett … was photographed in Nancy Pelosi’s office with his leg propped up on her desk. Barnett was convicted by a federal jury, which deliberated for two hours, on eight counts, including disorderly conduct in the Capitol building. He faces up to 47 years in prison. He is scheduled to be sentenced on May 3.”

In a response to Hedges’ column, Bruce Fein, a lawyer and former Reagan administration DOJ official, counters in an article just published by Consortium News that the prosecutions, convictions and sentencing of Jan. 6 participants are justified.

Fein compares some of the crimes committed on Jan. 6 to those by Nixon White House officials during Watergate, as well as to obstruction of justice allegations against Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton. Fein argues that the rioters risked the gravest constitutional crisis to the nation since the U.S. Civil War.

‘New Pearl Harbor’

Without downplaying the destruction of property, the injuries to police officers and the fear individuals at the Capitol felt for their safety that day, these comparisons, such as to the Civil War, seem as overblown as Sen. Chuck Schumer comparing the Jan. 6 riot to Pearl Harbor. 

Though a very serious event involving violence and destruction of property occurred and should be prosecuted, the extent of the sentences imposed is a matter for debate. Fein says Hedges has gratuitously brought up prison conditions of Special Administrative Measures, which have not been applied to anyone convicted over Jan. 6. Routinely calling these protestors “domestic terrorists” as many Democrats do, is a slippery slope, however.

Fein’s comparison of these crimes to those of the Watergate conspirators or to two presidents’ alleged obstruction of justice appears excessive. 

Watergate was a direct threat to U.S. democracy, such that it is, carried out by some of the most powerful men in the country, beginning with the president.  No case was made to equate that serious threat to the U.S. political system with a riot by some hardcore rightists and mostly ordinary Americans, as badly misguided as they were. 

Fein’s comparison of the obstruction of justice charge against a Jan. 6 participant to the same allegations against two sitting presidents distorts the consequences of an ordinary citizen’s actions to those of extremely powerful men. He writes:

“Hedges also implies Guy Wesley Reffin’s sentence of more than five years imprisonment was excessive despite conviction on five charges including obstructing the peaceful transfer of presidential power and obstruction of justice by threatening his two children if they told the truth. Obstruction of justice subverts the rule of law. It occasioned President Richard Nixon’s resignation and President Bill Clinton’s impeachment.”

The Bloodiest War

About 620,000 people were killed in the U.S. Civil War — the most Americans to ever die in a conflict — in a constitutional crisis so grave that one side wrote its own constitution. Fein is a constitutional expert and I am not. But he fails to make the case that that genuine constitutional crisis, which literally ripped the country apart, is comparable to Jan. 6 (notwithstanding that some of the protestors carried the racist Confederate flag.)  

Schumer: ‘A new Pearl Harbor.’ (Glenn Fawcett/Wikimedia Commons)

From the start, Democrats portrayed the riot as a “coup,” a portrayal Fein does not share. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton even tried to blame the “coup attempt” on Russian President Vladimir Putin, defaulting to the Democrats’ position that what ever goes wrong must be Russia’s fault.

Such remarks, including Schumer’s comparison to Pearl Harbor, were part of a calculatingly exaggerated portrayal of the events, exploited for political gain.    

The Democrats relied on their partisan, Jan. 6 hearings as their major campaign issue in the mid-term elections last November, given how little else they could run on in terms of their poor record in helping average Americans, one of the reasons I gave at the time for the riot happening in the first place.

An Impossible Goal

The stated aim of the rioters was to stop Congress from certifying the results of the November 2020 election. Fein says the protestors were justified in being convicted of violating the Electoral Count Act.

There is hardly a more pro-forma act in U.S. government than Congress’ certification of an election. It is such a huge formality that the U.S. media usually pays scant attention to it, unless an election is contested, like this one was. 

The protestors said they were trying to prevent then-Vice President Mike Pence from certifying Congress’ vote. But the law does not give this power to the vice president. The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 passed in the wake of the Jan. 6 riot clarified the vice president’s role, saying he or she cannot “solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate disputes over electors.”

Even if the protestors had occupied the Capitol for several days, instead of the four hours they actually did, Congress could have moved the certification proceedings to another venue, or waited until the protestors were eventually cleared out. 

In other words, there was a less than zero chance of the rioters preventing Joe Biden from becoming president. They may have been crazed enough to think they could, but there was no way they could have ultimately stopped the certification.* Since they could never have succeeded, raising the specter of the Civil War is needlessly alarmist. 

This was not the election itself that was being interfered with. The results were long in. The protestors, some violently, interrupted the process for a few hours. Rather than a great insurrection, this was the Great Interruption. 

The harsh sentences can be seen as a message sent by the state that it won’t tolerate any violent protest against a government that is alienating the public after 40 years of neoliberal policies. 

The Video

Since Fein wrote his critique of Hedge’s piece, there’s been the release of security video from Jan. 6 showing Jacob Chansley, the so-called “QAnon shaman,” being escorted by police through the corridors of the Capitol. They literally open doors for him.

The “shaman” was sentenced to more than three years in prison. Fein criticizes Hedges for omitting “that Chansley was not convicted of obstructing a picnic outing of Mary Poppins with Jane and Michael Banks, but with obstructing the peaceful transfer of presidential power in violation of the 12th Amendment and Electoral Count Act — which would have created a constitutional crisis only exceeded by the Civil War.”

These video sequences need to be explained. Were police instructed by a Republican member or members to escort Chansley around the place as Democrats first alleged? Their final report on Jan. 6 does not appear to have confirmed that. 

Democrats say the release of the surveillance video by Republican House Speak Kevin McCarthy to Fox News is somehow “a threat” to Congress. It appears instead to be a threat to the Democrats’ exaggerated and politicized message that Jan. 6, 2021 was a new “Pearl Harbor,” a Putin plot and, according to Fein, potentially the gravest constitutional crisis since the war between the states. The video’s release has led to an extraordinary apology from one prominent Democrat.

A toned down and more realistic view of that day may begin to heal the division that is tearing U.S. society apart and make Congress focus more on the “people’s business” rather than narrow partisan interests. 

*The only way that could happen is if at least one senator and one representative object to the results, leading both houses to recess, debate and then vote on whether to accept or reject the objections. This has happened only in  1969, 2005, and 2021 and in all cases the objections were rejected by both houses. 

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times.  He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe   

 

Show Comments