My Thoughts on January 6 and “Insurrections”

by Don Fredrick, The Complete Obama Timeline, ©2023

(Dec. 23, 2023) — Of course I cannot get into the heads of the people present, but my assumption is that many (if not most) in the January 6, 2021 crowd (and some in the Trump administration) hoped the presence of thousands of protestors would demonstrate to the House members that the voters were angry and believed the election was stolen, and that the Electoral College votes of several states with numerous election “irregularities” should not be counted but should be sent back to the states for reconsideration and auditing. But that would not be an “insurrection” in the sense of an overthrow of the government. It would merely be a crowd of protestors encouraging Congress to take an action that was within the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution. The protestors were certainly not planning to take power and grab the reins of the U.S. government. None were declaring themselves to be members of the House or Senate, or President and Vice President. They were expressing their displeasure and anger, a right that is recognized and protected by the First Amendment.
 
One could argue that the demonstrations on January 6 (an effort to affect the outcome of the proceedings) were little different than the demonstrations in front of the Supreme Court (an effort to affect its upcoming ruling in Dobbs, which eventually overturned Roe v. Wade). With both the January 6 and the Supreme Court demonstrations, the participants were hoping for people in government to take actions that were legally permitted. The participants were not expecting to become members of the House, Senate, or Supreme Court. They were merely trying to influence the decisions of those who already were. (By contrast, the goal in the French and Russian Revolutions was not to “influence” the king and the czar, it was to kill them and take control of the French and Russian government.)
 
Unfortunately, there were illegal acts on January 6 and in demonstrations against the Supreme Court, including vandalism, violence, and death threats. Granted, no one broke into the Supreme Court building (although some tried), but unlike January 6 no one willingly (and suspiciously) opened the doors for the protestors from the inside.
 
No one should condone the violence in either situation, but no one should also condone then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi turning down requests for more security, the Capitol Building doors being opened for protestors, and the FBI inserting perhaps as many as two hundred agents and provocateurs into the crowd to drum up violence. Prosecutions for breaking windows or stealing government property were certainly proper, but there was no “insurrection” or “coup d’état.”
 
An insurrection is an open revolt against the government, and a revolt is an attempt to overthrow the authority of the government. But the January 6 protestors were not attempting to overthrow the authority of the government, they were attempting to persuade it to use its legitimate and existing authority to question the Electoral College votes of some states that many considered to be improper and based on fraudulent activities. Congress had the power, the right, and the authority to do just that. Pressuring elected officials to do something that is legal and within their Constitutional powers cannot be considered an “insurrection” any more than pressuring Supreme Court Justices to do something that is legal and within their Constitutional powers can be considered illegal. (In both cases the protestors failed. Congress did not reject any Electoral College votes, and the Supreme Court did overrule Roe v. Wade. But in both cases the people had the right to protest and make their voices, opinions, and desires heard.)
 
Some will argue that President Trump encouraged the gathering on January 6, and of course his speaking to the crowd obviously demonstrated that he also wanted Congress to act by rejecting the Electoral College votes of some states. But Congress had the legal authority to do just that, and Trump had the legal right to encourage that legal action. He therefore broke no laws on January 6, and even the Trump-hating prosecutor Jack Smith chose not to charge Trump with insurrection.
 
Further, what Trump did in questioning the election outcomes in some states was nothing new or extraordinary. More than a few Democrats engaged in similar protestations and calls for the rejection of Electoral College votes from some states after previous presidential elections. The Democrats had the right to question the results in some states, and so did Trump. The Democrats and Trump were doing nothing more than requesting an action that was legal and proper under the U.S. Constitution.
 
Attempts to keep Trump off some state ballots based on the 14th Amendment incorrectly assume he was engaged in an “insurrection.” He was not. Nor was anyone else. The citizens who oppose Trump are certainly free to vote against him in the primary and general elections, but the 14th Amendment was never intended to be twisted in knots for partisan political purposes out of fear of people having a voice at the ballot box. The U.S. Supreme Court needs to put an end to this lawfare lunacy.