SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
january 6 committee
'Nonsense!': Jamie Raskin Rips Republicans Over Unending January 6 Lies
"America, we cannot let McCarthy and Carlson become the Orwellian editors of our past or the authoritarian authors of our future," exhorted the Maryland Democrat.
Mar 08, 2023
As right-wing politicians and pundits continue to peddle lies and conspiracies related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump, Democratic Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin on Wednesday delivered a passionate rebuttal of Republicans' "nonsense."
Speaking on the House floor, Raskin asserted that "it all starts" with "Donald Trump's 'Big Lie'" that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.
He continued: "They say, 'Who knows, maybe he won, maybe he didn't. You say Joe Biden's president, we say Donald Trump's president.' Nonsense!"
"Sixty federal and state courts rejected every claim of electoral fraud and corruption that they put forward. Sixty," Raskin—who was the lead manager for Trump's historic second impeachment—reminded listeners. "They don't have a single court that ever ruled in their favor. Donald Trump lost that election by more than seven million votes, 306-232 in the Electoral College."
"So then... their Big Lie has to stretch all the way over January 6," Raskin said. "We have to disbelieve the evidence of our own eyes and our own ears. We saw them come and descend upon this chamber, this Congress, wounding and injuring 150 of our police officers, breaking people's noses, breaking people's fingers, putting people in the hospital, and already they're back on the news with big lies saying, 'No, no, no, it was a tourist visit.'"
Referring to the Fox News opinion host and the Republican House speaker, Raskin tweeted Wednesday that "Tucker Carlson's assault on the truth about January 6 is unconscionable, but more scandalous yet is Kevin McCarthy's central role in its design. America, we cannot let McCarthy and Carlson become the Orwellian editors of our past or the authoritarian authors of our future.
On Monday evening, Carlson—who according to legal documents said he "passionately hates" Trump even as he publicly amplified the ex-president's lies—dubiously dismissed the Capitol attack as "mostly peaceful chaos."
Carlson's characterization was roundly rejected even by numerous Republican senators including Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who called the false narrative "bullshit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Faith Leaders Say Jan. 6 Committee Report Downplays Role of Christian Nationalism
"If we don't confront Christian nationalism then we are leaving ourselves open to future attacks, like what we saw on January 6," said one critic.
Dec 29, 2022
In an effort to fill in what they say are critical gaps in the U.S. House select committee's report on the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, faith leaders are pushing the corporate media and the American public to confront the role Christian nationalism played in the insurrection, warning that ignoring the link could make similar violence more likely in the future.
The committee's report, released last week, laid out extensive evidence showing that former President Donald Trump was the driving force behind the attack aimed at stopping lawmakers from certifying the 2020 presidential election results, but mentioned Christian nationalism just once, despite the fact that many of the Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol openly expressed Christian nationalist beliefs before, during, and after the attack.
As Religion News Servicereported last week, some Trump supporters who attempted to overthrow the government carried flags displaying a so-called "Jesus fish" painted red, white, and blue like the American flag along with the words "Proud American Christian." Hundreds took part in what they called a "Jericho March" and prayed for the election results to be overturned the day before the insurrection, and some were heard chanting, "Christ is king" in Washington, D.C. on January 6.
"The symbols of Christian nationalism were on full display not only on January 6 itself, but at numerous rallies leading up to the attack," Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), told Alicia Menendez on MSNBC on Wednesday.
Christian Nationalism Conspicuously Absent From January 6 Reportwww.youtube.com
The report, however, only noted that supporters of white supremacist Nick Fuentes, who was in Washington on January 6 but has not been accused of breaching the Capitol, have "repeatedly promoted white supremacist and Christian nationalist beliefs."
The inclusion of just a single reference to Christian nationalism—the belief that the government should actively ensure that the U.S. is a Christian nation—was something faith leaders warned against earlier this year when they called on lawmakers to closely examine the role the belief system played in convincing thousands of people to storm the Capitol and continue to question the 2020 election results long after January 6.
In June, Christians Against Christian Nationalism, a project of the BJC, wrote in a letter to the House committee that "Christian nationalism helped motivate and intensify the insurrection" and that lawmakers should "thoroughly investigate the role that Christian nationalism played in the attack."
"This seditious mob was motivated not just by loyalty to Trump, but by an unholy amalgamation of white supremacy and Christianity that has plagued our nation since its inception and is still with us today," wrote Robert P. Jones, president of the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), at the time.
As Religion News Servicereported last week, a spokesperson for committee member Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.) suggested weeks before the report was released that the congresswoman objected to focusing seriously on Christian nationalism, telling The Washington Post that Cheney "won't sign onto any 'narrative' [that] suggests every American who believes God has blessed America is a white supremacist."
Lawmakers including Cheney, who leaves office next week, "fear that confronting Christian nationalism might be misconstrued as an attack on Christianity or Christians, and nothing could be further from the truth," Tyler told MSNBC. "We are trying to draw attention to what Christian nationalism is... Christian nationalism turns Christianity's gospel of love into a false idol of power. It turns John's gospel teaching us that God so loved the world on its head, saying falsely that God has a special plan for the U.S. or that God loves the U.S. more than any other country, or that God has preordained election results."
Faith leaders are working to explain "why that's not the case," added Tyler, "because if we don't confront Christian nationalism then we are leaving ourselves open to future attacks, like what we saw on January 6."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The January 6 Committee's 'Crime and Punishment'
The report reads like Dostoevsky’s classic novel. Will Donald Trump be brought to justice like the book's dark protagonist?
Dec 29, 2022
The most surprising thing about the final report of the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol isn’t the mountain of evidence of Donald Trump’s criminality that it contains nor the criminal referrals it makes to the Justice Department, but its readability. According to The New York Times, at least a half dozen publishing houses are releasing their own editions of the 845-page tome. On a December 22 broadcast, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell nailed it when he remarked, “This is the way a great novelist would lay out this story.”
But it isn’t just any novel the report calls to mind. The closest approximation is Fyodor Dostoevsky’s classic psychological drama, Crime and Punishment.
Both the great novel and the report are constructed around a tortured central character who thinks he is above the law. Dostoevsky’s dark protagonist Roidon Raskolnikov kills an elderly pawnbroker and her half-sister and then struggles to convince himself that murder can be justified if committed to demonstrate and secure the power of an extraordinary man. Similarly, the report’s protagonist is the forty-fifth President of the United States, who plots to overthrow his own government in a vain and desperate attempt to cling to power and glory.
I’m not the first commentator to compare Trump to Raskolnikov. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd beat me to the punch in a 2017 op-ed penned during the Mueller investigation, where she wrote:
“Both men [Trump and Raskolnikov] are naifs who arrive and think they have the right to transgress. Both are endlessly fascinating psychological studies: self-regarding, with Napoleon-style grandiosity, and self-incriminating. Both are consumed with chaotic, feverish thoughts as they are pursued by law enforcement.”
This isn’t to say, of course, that the parallels are exact. Unlike Raskolnikov, for example, Trump will never acknowledge his culpability for the insurrection, which led to the deaths of seven people. The report, after all, isn’t a work of fiction, even if at times it might read like one with chapter headings including “The Big Lie,” “I Just Want to Find 11,780 Votes,” and “Just Call it Corrupt and Leave the Rest to Me.”
And then there is the all-important question of punishment. Raskolnikov ultimately confesses his guilt and is sentenced to prison. Trump, by contrast, remains a free man, and continues to rage on his social media platform—the ludicrously named Truth Social—against his accusers, protesting his innocence and claiming, as always, that he’s the victim of a political witch hunt.
Trump’s prosecution, at least at the federal level (he’s also under serious investigation in the states of Georgia and New York), now rests in the hands of the Justice Department and special counsel Jack Smith. The DOJ has received criminal referrals from the committee for four overlapping federal felonies committed by the former President:
- Obstruction of an official proceeding, referring to the joint session of Congress convened on January 6, 2021, to confirm the election of Joe Biden, and the effort to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify Biden’s victory;
- Conspiracy to defraud the United States, referring to the former president’s multi-phase scheme to overturn the election;
- Conspiracy to make a false statement, referring to the plan to submit false slates of electors to Congress and the National Archives; and
- Inciting, assisting, or giving aid and comfort to an insurrection, referring to Trump’s incendiary speech immediately prior to the riot at the Capitol and his behavior during the riot.
The committee has also referred five of Trump’s former aides and associates to the Justice Department: John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Kenneth Cheseboro, and Jeffrey Clark. Trump, however, is the only member of the crew who has been referred for insurrection. The report singles out the ex-commander-in-chief on the insurrection charge, stating “the central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump.”
Although the referrals are non-binding, Smith is already in the thick of investigating the insurrection and the plot to overturn the 2020 election, presenting evidence to at least two grand juries. The special counsel is also leading the investigation into Trump’s removal of top-secret government documents to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
Convicting Trump will not be easy, especially on charges related to January 6. Each of the felonies referred to the Department of Justice requires proof of criminal intent. The government will have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew he had lost the election and was acting with a “corrupt purpose” to obstruct the work of the joint session of Congress or, on the conspiracy referral, that he had an intent to defraud the nation with the submission of fake slates of electors.
It will be particularly challenging to prove that Trump incited or assisted the insurrection as Trump would likely mount a First Amendment defense. In its landmark 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court articulated a two-part test for punishing incendiary speech, holding that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (emphasis added).
Still, it’s easy to understand why the committee chose to cite Trump for insurrection. Trump knew that members of the crowd who had gathered to hear him talk were armed when he urged them to march to the Capitol to “fight like hell.” And amid the ensuing melee, he accused Pence of cowardice for not using his authority as Vice President to change the outcome of the election, seething in a Tweet, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution…USA demands the truth!” Almost immediately after the Tweet was posted, the report notes, “the crowd around the Capitol surged, and more individuals joined the effort to confront police and break further into the building.”
Should Trump be tried and convicted of insurrection, he would face a prison sentence of up to ten years. He would also be barred from holding federal office for life.
So, what are the odds that Trump is finally held to account? Will Jack Smith prove to be Trump’s Porfiry Petrovich, the police investigator who brought Raskolnikov to justice, or will he turn out to be another Robert Mueller? We may have the answer in a matter of months.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular