On January 6, 2021, a lie-fed mob attacked the U.S. Congress for the purpose of stopping a constitutional process. Which they succeeded in doing, for several hours. During this time, the president watched the attack on television, with satisfaction.
For a few days afterward, most people in America were horrified and disgusted. But quickly, things returned to normal. The wagons circled. It was not Trump supporters who attacked the Congress, you see. It was BLM, Antifa, or the FBI. On second thought, it was Trump supporters — and they were good and right.
You still sometimes hear it both ways: “We didn’t do it.” “Yes, we did do it, and we’d do it again.”
In the past two years, the January 6 rioters have become martyrs, heroes, hostages, in the eyes of some — starting with Donald Trump, the leader of the Republican Party. And this extends to a host of Republicans under him.
Elise Stefanik, for example, follows Trump’s lead in referring to the January 6 defendants as “hostages.” She is not an insignificant figure. She is a member of the Republican House leadership, elected by her fellow Republicans to replace Liz Cheney in that job.
I think all of us can agree: Elise Stefanik and Liz Cheney are completely different people.
At Trump campaign rallies, there is an interesting ceremony. Yesterday, in Dayton, Ohio, an announcer said, “Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6 hostages.” Then a recording of the “J6 Choir” played, as Trump saluted.
You can watch it all unfold here.
Often, pro-Trump people refer to January 6 as “J6.” And they have an affectionate term for the rioters: “J6-ers.” Those who were there have cachet. They enjoy special status in TrumpWorld (and therefore in the Republican Party).
“Well, thank you very much,” said Trump yesterday as he took the microphone, “and you see the spirit from the hostages, and that’s what they are, is hostages.” He further described the convicted rioters as “unbelievable patriots.” Twice, he called them that: “unbelievable patriots.”
That term is maybe more apt than Trump knows.
Royce C. Lamberth is a senior judge on the district bench in Washington, D.C. He was appointed by President Reagan in 1987. He was always known as “a conservative’s conservative” — a firm constitutionalist, for one thing. Of course, the understanding of “conservatism” has undergone a major transformation in America during the past several years.
In January, Judge Lamberth resentenced a January 6 defendant, James Little, and wrote some accompanying notes. Those notes may be found here.
He says,
Mr. Little has consistently refused to take responsibility for his actions on January 6 — today is the first time he has come close to accepting responsibility. He has denied the gravity of what happened that day and the legitimacy of bringing the criminal justice system to bear on those who participated. He says he has been persecuted, condemned to “political prison” for having peacefully protested in the Capitol.
Lamberth continues,
The Court is accustomed to defendants who refuse to accept that they did anything wrong. But in my thirty-seven years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream. I have been dismayed to see distortions and outright falsehoods seep into the public consciousness. I have been shocked to watch some public figures try to rewrite history, claiming rioters behaved “in an orderly fashion” like ordinary tourists, or martyrizing convicted January 6 defendants as “political prisoners” or even, incredibly, “hostages.” That is all preposterous. But the Court fears that such destructive, misguided rhetoric could presage further danger to our country.
A striking phrase, Lamberth has used: “further danger to our country.”
He continues,
The Court cannot condone the shameless attempts by Mr. Little or anyone else to misinterpret or misrepresent what happened. It cannot condone the notion that those who broke the law on January 6 did nothing wrong, or that those duly convicted with all the safeguards of the United States Constitution, including a right to trial by jury in felony cases, are political prisoners or hostages.
Judge Lamberth then says,
So let me set the record straight, based on what I’ve learned presiding over many January 6 prosecutions, hearing from dozens of witnesses, watching hundreds of hours of video footage, and reading thousands of pages of evidence.
Here he goes:
On January 6, 2021, a mob of people invaded and occupied the United States Capitol, using force to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power mandated by the Constitution and our republican heritage.
“The Constitution and our republican heritage” — such old-fashioned words!
More:
This was not a protest that got out of hand. It was a riot; in many respects a coordinated riot, as is clear from cases before me . . . “Protestors” would have simply shared their views on the election — as did thousands that day who did not approach the Capitol. But those who breached and occupied the Capitol building and grounds halted the counting of the Electoral College votes required by the Twelfth Amendment. The rioters interfered with a necessary step in the constitutional process, disrupted the lawful transfer of power, and thus jeopardized the American constitutional order. Although the rioters failed in their ultimate goal, their actions nonetheless resulted in the deaths of multiple people, injury to over 140 members of law enforcement, and lasting trauma for our entire nation. This was not patriotism; it was the antithesis of patriotism.
And make no mistake:
The rioters achieved this result through force. Not everyone present that day was violent, but violence is what let them into the Capitol. At first, a police line protected the Capitol, but eventually law enforcement was subjected to such force by such a mass of people that the rioters pushed through. Upon entering the Capitol, many rioters vandalized and looted, some hunted for members of Congress.
Judge Lamberth’s notes should be read in full. At the end, he says,
This is a matter of right and wrong. . . . The Court does not expect its remarks to fully stem the tide of falsehoods. But I hope a little truth will go a long way.
Whether it will or not — it deserves to. I am grateful to the “old” conservatives such as Royce C. Lamberth for what they do. For the stands they take. For their fidelity to American principles and ideals. To the simple truth, for that matter. To the rule of law. These conservatives may be “old,” but they are more needed than ever.