Writes Ross Douthat, in "Why Jan. 6 Wasn’t an Insurrection" (NYT).
"[I]magine a world where Trump himself did what he accused Biden and the Democrats of doing and organized a ballot-box-stuffing operation in key swing states that made him the elected president by the narrowest of margins. (Basically, a version of what Lyndon Johnson and the Daley machine were accused of doing in the 1960 election to tip Texas and Illinois to the Democrats, or what some conspiracy-minded liberals claimed happened with Ohio voting machines in 2004.) Imagine that it worked — and that Democrats had a certain amount of evidence that this occurred, but their legal challenges were unsuccessful, a last-ditch round of objections and protests failed to prevent Trump being sworn in, and dispositive proof emerged only after his second term was well begun. Clearly this would be one of the worst crimes in the history of the American republic.... But I don’t think it would make sense, in such a context, for Democrats to go to the Supreme Court and argue that Trump should be removed from office for engaging in 'insurrection or rebellion.'"
Would it make sense within the reasoning of those who believe that what Trump did was what the 14th Amendment means by "insurrection"? If so, doesn't their reasoning collapse upon itself?
Posts
57 comments:
It’s almost hyper-Orwellian to be required to couch the truth of what happened in a “for the sake of argument” construction.
What do they mean by "insurrection"? Merriam Webster's on-line definitions are rather ... imprecise. I suspect that the imprecision is on purpose.
REBELLION, REVOLUTION, UPRISING, REVOLT, INSURRECTION, MUTINY mean an outbreak against authority.
REBELLION implies an open formidable resistance that is often unsuccessful.
open rebellion against the officers
REVOLUTION applies to a successful rebellion resulting in a major change (as in government).
a political revolution that toppled the monarchy
UPRISING implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion.
quickly put down the uprising
REVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.
a revolt by the Young Turks that surprised party leaders
an insurrection of oppressed laborers
MUTINY applies to group insubordination or insurrection especially against naval authority.
a mutiny led by the ship's cook
Merriam Webster
What transforms a political event from a violent riot or lawless mob (which Jan. 6 plainly was)
Parentheses aren't a clarification but a second authorial voice. Always ask why it's not in the original voice.
Here they're scholarly / informal.
What I have a theory for and what I think.
This scenario implies Biden should be accused of insurrection, as he was the one ultimately responsible for the ballot-stuffing, if it happened at the alleged scale. This makes some sense because the J6 protesters were angry that the integrity of the 2020 election was compromised. They were looking for status quo re that election cycle compared to previous ones. They were looking to regain the previously existing election order.
Would it make sense within the reasoning of those who believe that what Trump did was what the 14th Amendment means by "insurrection"? If so, doesn't their reasoning collapse upon itself?
If the reasoning consists of "we win, you lose, or the republic comes to an end" it makes perfect sense. You cannot calm emotions with reason. Not for the folks who need a nice safe space to live their lives in their curated and purified daily reality.
Those who staff our processes of government hold the whip hand until and unless their actions can be honestly reported. What do they want? What is in their interest?
It is becoming clear to these folks that the only way to stop the orange monster is lawfare, because they can see the narrative shredding into bits before their eyes. What about the current Atlanta soap opera? Even the lawfare is falling apart due to questionable decisions made by the people who were given the job.
Well, if that's what it takes, that's what we'll see. And may God bless the United States Of America. The tragedy is that no matter who wins, their castle is built on sand and it will all tumble down until the process is normalized to one that the people will accept no matter who wins. That's not where we are today.
All of this was obvious from the start, for those with eyes and those not in Machiavelli - Guillotine mode. The establishment and left have been throwing everything against the wall against Trump to see what sticks since election night 2016. They've desperately tried to undo what cannot be undone, and try to save face/save egos among a whole bunch of people who heretofore considered themselves "the best and the brightest." [Which explains why Biden's policies are largely blind knee-jerk mirroring of Trump's policies.]
Pride goes before destruction. The absence of morals and ethics leads to Roman-style political backstabbing.
Douhat has a pretty good take actually. If he had added the part where the people in power, for the purposes of a political distraction from stealing the election and to disqualify their main political opponent, planted actors to provoke the crowd of protestors, then invited them into the building and encouraged them to commit vandalism to breach restricted areas so security would shoot at them, then I’d say he was spot on…
What transforms a political event from a violent riot or lawless mob (which Jan. 6 plainly was) to a genuinely insurrectionary event is the outright denial of the authority of the existing political order and the attempt to establish some alternative order in its place...."
So . . CHAZ/CHOP in Seattle -- the self-proclaimed Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle? Or does a certain level of egregious stupidity and dysfunction exempt a movement from constituting "insurrection," sort of like attempting murder with voodoo?
Maybe I missed it. In what way was the January 6th crowd violent?
The problem with calling Jan 6 an insurrection is that it defines insurrection down too far, to the point where almost any protest could qualify. Which they clearly don’t believe.
What made Jan 6 special is that it was right-wingers engaging in left-wing protest tactics. But no matter how violent they may get, left-wing protests never get called insurrection. So what made it an insurrection is not what they did, but what they believed. It’s pure viewpoint discrimination.
Shouldn't the circumstance that nobody can actually define "insurrection" with any degree of precision render the "insurrection" provision unconstitutional, either as written or, in this specific instance, as applied?
(Rhetorical question. Butch Cassidy has spoken eloquently about the applicability of rules in a knife fight).
Merriam Webster is a 1984 style “dictionary” that updates its definitions to meet the needs of the Democrats. According to it, the sentence “I felt the baby kick” can only mean that you were kicked by a baby, maybe when you reached into the crib, because until birth, the human being in question can only be referred to as a fetus, or possibly, “foetus.”
Good for the NYT for doing what journalists do. Four years late.
Now, Ann. When you started blogging 20 years ago today did you ever contemplate or conceive of the idea that you would be writing about insurrection in America. Or the Dems supporting child mutilation? Or 10m illegal aliens?
Merriam-Webster is a “prescriptive” dictionary, not a “descriptive,” one, and the people deciding how you must use language are all Democrats. If you are going to refer to a dictionary, pay for a good one, because if it’s free, you are the product.
Joe told us they were going to cheat a week before the election:
“the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics”
@tim in vermont I think you have it exactly backwards. As William F Buckley, Jr. (not a Democrat) explained in a rather famous forward to a M-W dictionary, it is the "prescriptive" function of the dictionary that serves as a bulwark against the political abuse of words to mean what these change-junkies want them to mean in order to sway opinion by deceit. WJB's essay was paired with a rebuttal extolling the virtues of "descriptive" definitions. That both were published as forwards to the M-W dictionary served as M-W's acknowledgement that regardless of the tension both touchstones are essential. While language is fluid and ever-changing, developments should not only be organic and natural (as opposed to intentionally political or manipulative) but can only occur against a backdrop of commonly understood and agreed-upon definitions.
Douchehat might have gotten one right here.
In the RussiaGate case, the DOJ obtained plenty of evidence (much of it still classified) that the Russian Government tried to meddle in the USA's 2016 election. Furthermore, the DOJ learned enough to conclude that the Trump organization was not involved.
However, the DOJ's Mueller Report avoided exonerating Trump. Instead, the Mueller Report declared that it could not exonerate Trump. After all, somewhere there still might be some evidence -- the DOJ just could not find it -- that Trump might be guilty.
Since the DOJ thus failed to exonerate Trump conclusively about the 2016 election, the DOJ has discredited itself somewhat about the 2020 election. Now the evidence against Trump is ambiguous. Maybe Trump incited the riot in January 2021, but maybe he stopped short of actually doing so.
The DOJ seems determined to at least insinuate that Trump must be guilty.
It should be noted that Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and numerous other Confederates were indicted for Treason and Insurrection at then end of the Civil War, but none were ever tried. If you can guess why, you will be one up on our current crop of Democrat ubermenschen.
Too late, arsehole!
Better off going with the NYT is not an honest, legitimate reporter of the news.
"... a violent riot or lawless mob (which Jan. 6 plainly was) ..."
First violent, rioting, lawless mob I've seen stay quietly inside the velvet ropes.
It's no use. They've glommed onto the "insurrection" meme and they're sticking to it.
Is all of history like this?
When I think of insurrection, I think of Dublin, Easter, 1916. Triple digit body count. Double digit executions. Now that’s what I call insurrection, not some guy with a funny hat.
"the attempt to establish some alternative order in its place"
Right. And since the old order doesn't want to give way, some sort of weaponry is needed to establish the alternative. Exactly what tools did the "rioters" bring along?
It's nice of Douthat to critique the narrative. It's also irrelevant, in terms of countering the propaganda or freeing the J6 prisoners, at least until SCOTUS rules. IF it does. Not holding my breath.
I find it interesting that in all these "What is an insurrection, anyway?" arguments, no one on either side ever references one of the few- if not the only- uprisings generally agreed to be an actual insurrection: The Battle of Blair Mountain, beginning Aug. 25, 1921.
Although it was not a national effort, 10,000 armed and organized men mounted a days-long campaign to overthrow a county legal system that they claimed was corrupt and violating both the state and U.S. constitution.
It was the first bombing of U.S. citizens by a U.S. gov't.
Afterward a number of men were placed on trial for treason.
Agree or disagree w/the events of Blair Mountain, that was an insurrection. Why doesn't anybody use that as the standard? Seems like an obvious choise.
You will get to see a real insurrection next January if Trump wins the election in November, and it will include weapons and arson and possibly even some dead Republican congresscritters.
This is the threat, not voiced explicitly just yet, that the Democrats will increasingly make as the year goes on if Trump doesn't fade in popularity.
The burden is on those who are calling J6 an insurrection to prove that it was. The burden is not on everyone else to prove that it wasn't. Given that (a) the participants were unarmed, (b) they neither planned nor attempted to take over the government, and (c) they peacefully dispersed after three hours, the case for insurrection falls apart. Those arguing that it was an insurrection can only meet their burden of proof by watering down the definition of "insurrection" so much that almost any unruly protest against a government action or policy would qualify.
Those who seek to disqualify Trump from the ballot also need to show that he "engaged in" the alleged insurrection. From what I've read, the ONLY thing Trump did to "engage" in it was encouraging people to show up for the rally on the Mall and then to march up Capitol Hill and peacefully protest there. They say some of his rhetoric was incendiary, but clearly it was protected by the First Amendment (i.e., it didn't qualify as incitement). He didn't do anything to assist those who entered the Capitol and committed vandalism and trespass there to gain access. Nor is there any evidence that he planned or coordinated that part of the day's events, which was the only part that any seriously contends could be seen as making it an "insurrection."
It's all just nonsense.
Other Jim here. (And I tend to think of Wexford bridge 1796.)
To my mind insurrection is the use of violence, actual or threatened, in opposition to the existing political regime with intent of making a political change. Politics by other means.
By that measure I'd say the men in funny hats were simply rioters and vandals, and the man who sent them and a few of his croneies were insurrectionists. Incompetence is no excuse.
"Douchehat might have gotten one right here."
Those who seek to ride the wave of fashion must frequently change their hats.
How can supposedly intelligent people watch the interior videos of J6 and say it was “plainly a lawless mob.” There were lawless actors. Outside where clashes with police took place it was a mixed mob, but the overwhelming majority were nonviolent and many have shown cops to be instigators gassing the crowd that was trying to effect an orderly exit. The same writers who stuck to the “mostly peaceful” script for 2020, when patrol cars burned and cops died at the hands of BLM rioters, are simply untrustworthy when it comes to an honest assessment of J6.
No burning buildings, no parts of town given over to mob rule, yet no “mostly peaceful” label where it is truly deserved. Progs show over and over that they put their myths above the truth when they do journ-0-lism.
I thought it was all about the lectern.
It you possess the lectern then you're the president.
That's how it works, right?
So technically, when they took the lectern away from the protester in the capital, they were being the insurrectionists.
Didn't see that one coming, did you?
Battle of Athens, 1946: insurrection?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
Breezy at 5:42 nails it 100%. I agree with every word.
Conservative's were trying to restore order by making their voices heard. The way we’ve always been taught to seek redress. It’s always praised when the left does it or at bare minimum quietly tolerated like last night’s riot. But when the center and/or right assemble to protest the establishment condemns and criminalizes it as they did with the Tea Party gatherings. For those and J6 they outright lie and Democrats make up claims of crimes or racism and GOPe doesn’t lift a finger to defend the Americans right to protest and show their contempt for the people who voted them into office.
Guns were drawn in each of the examples. No guns on J6. People who believe it was an insurrection wore masks in their cars until recently, believe democracy is fragile enough to t fall from loud shouts, believe the Russia collusion, believe in fraud without a defrauded.
Puerto Rican separatists setting off bombs in the U.S. capitol in 1988??
"The same writers who stuck to the “mostly peaceful” script for 2020, when patrol cars burned and cops died at the hands of BLM rioters, are simply untrustworthy..."
The rest is silence.
Next he'll be telling us that Trump didn't defraud his lenders.
“The man who sent them.”
You mean the man who told the Capitol Police that they would need 20K National Guard troops and tweeted to the demonstrators to protest peacefully and respect the police? The incompetence, if you want to go there, was on the part of Pelosi. Slipping a few military age violent actors dressed in MAGA gear and Antifa style riot armor is no big trick. Which raises the question of why this line of questioning was disallowed.
There are just so many questions that we are supposed to not think about if we are going to believe the narrative, right down to the fact that the Cyber Threat Intelligence League created by the Obama White House provided training in creating false flag operations. The Democrats alone seem to have benefited from the event that they did nothing to prevent, like the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire to shut down their political opposition.
mikee said...
Battle of Athens, 1946: insurrection?
There's a reason they don't talk about it- it was successful. Against Democrats.
In response to "Other Jim Here" by your definition of insurrection then the people who incited, encouraged and directed ballot harvesting are insurrectionists. And they happen to be Democrats. My heart goes out to those poor dupes who collected and stuffed the ballot drop boxes. They're just like the J6 protestors at the Capitol. But the Democrats who managed the process should be jailed, pronto! And no bail!
Cue another mass staff meltdown from the rest of the NYT snowflakes.
Remember, creating a false narrative about Trump being A TRAITOR, by seeding fake news stories to media outlets as well as with LAW ENFORCEMENT, was totally cool.
One government lawyer who forged an email, was given two weeks in jail, and is still a lawyer.
the Mueller Report didn't even think this was interesting enough to inform the public about. They protected the Clinton Plan conspiracy.
Accuse a man of treason using documents you faked, seed it to the cops, to the media, and not get in any trouble. Law enforcement decides to help cover it up.
2018 mid terms were influenced by this, too. Foreign policy was influenced.
This is far bigger than Watergate.
An invitation, a rug summarily pulled, a cold-blooded murder, assault and riot/disorder, and mass violation of civil rights in progress. A probable Whitmer conspiracy.
insurrection (n.)
"an uprising against civil authority," early 15c., insurreccion, from Old French insurreccion or directly from Late Latin insurrectionem (nominative insurrectio) "a rising up," noun of action from past-participle stem of insurgere "to rise up" (see insurgent).
- etymonline.com
"I find it interesting that in all these "What is an insurrection, anyway?" arguments, no one on either side ever references one of the few- if not the only- uprisings generally agreed to be an actual insurrection: The Battle of Blair Mountain, beginning Aug. 25, 1921."
Because the "insurrectionists", some of which are in my family tree, were labor unionists on strike. The media of today would find that fact problematic in calling it an insurrection.
Did the purported ballot harvesting and the other (apparently) fantasized voter frauds involved violence? No? Then by my definition this is not insurrection. Vote tampering, once evidence becomes evident, should be prosecuted.
I don't see how you can have an insurrection without the threat of force.
Regarding "The Battle of Blair Mountain", it seems like an insurrection to me: an armed attempt to change the political and economic situation. I might happen to agree with those insurrectionists. I'm not sure they were justified in their actions, but they probably felt that they had no other way to change their situation.
Which leads to the another question: was Trump's insurrection justified? Since I don't sympathize with that insurrection, I obviously don't think it was justified. Something tells me I'm in the minority around here.
It’s said that Goebbels loved his job, well I bet that the guy who thought of calling describing what the Democrats did to rig the election “inflammatory insurrectionist language” was probably laughing maniacally when the idea hit him.
If the Bitter Clingers had intended it to be an insurrection they wouldn’t have left their guns at home.
It’s pretty funny how throwing an IED into a Federal courthouse in Portland, or attempting to burn down an occupied prison was not an insurrection, but walking into the Capitol at the invitation of the Capitol Police is. I guess that I am not a subtle enough thinker to discern all of the fine distinctions that must have been taken into account to come to this conclusion.
In the Civil War Era, no member of the Confederacy (no member of the military, or of the political leadership) was ever indicted for, or tried for, or found guilty of, or punished for the crime of insurrection. You know who was? Abolitionist John Brown, who led a fairly small armed uprising against the US government because he believed the government needed to be more active in ending slavery. From a modern perspective we have sympathy or even admiration for those insurrectionists in the abolition movement.
The real reason that the Democrats were terrified by the events of Jan. 6 is because they thought they had a lock on revolutionary mob violence, and they found out the hard way they didn't.
Look at all the examples of riots by left wing groups -- they all occur in blue cities. Why? Because if the authorities don't wink and nod at the actions by their far-left praetorian guards, those guards get shut down really fast by cops or the national guard (e.g. a would-be Antifa riot at Auburn University in Alabama).
But, on Jan. 6, a right-wing mob came into the heart of a blue city and took over what should have been the heavily defended Capital. They were never pushed out by force, either. They dispersed when Trump told them to.
The Left knows that the Jan Sixers were not armed, but think in their hearts that if Trump had told them to, they would have showed up armed, and to clear the Capital would have been a modern day re-creation of the Paris Commune.
If I understand correctly, and I’m not sure I do, the hypothetical question being posed by this blog post is whether organizing a ballot-box-stuffing operation in key swing states in the manner alleged by Donald Trump would constitute an insurrection, ‘within the reasoning of those who believe that what Trump did was what the 14th Amendment means by "insurrection"?’
No, Trump did not accuse Biden and the Democrats of stuffing the ballot boxes violently, so that element would be missing.
Exactly what tools did the "rioters" bring along?
Flags mounted on poles. And, if you noticed during their withdrawal, they were allowed to leave armed with these high-density weapons of insurrection. That said, when they bring a flag, you bring a gun and get in their faces, or a scalpel to relieve your "burden" h/t Obama... be like Hamas: murder, rape, torture, and incarcerate your opponents without trial a la Democrats' J6.
Audit the vote! Rebel... I mean, racist.
The abolitionists, and their ideological Posterity, were and are anti-slavery, anti-diversity, and anti-human rites performed for social, clinical, political, criminal, and fair weather progress. They also don't share dreams of Herr Mengele, and look forward to Summer after the [ethnic] Spring! What is it good for? Redistributive and retributive change. Oh, well. All's fair in lust and abortion.
Douthat is being deliberately obtuse. When you:
1) Falsely claim, over the object of every lawyer in the country, that the Vice President can unilaterally overturn the election
2) Summon your supporters to Washington with the express purpose of intimidating the VP and Congress into illegally overturning the election
3) Rile the mob up and send them to the Capitol to intimidate the VP and Congress into overturning the election
4) When informed a riot has broken out, refuse to call out the National Guard and send out tweets calling your VP a coward for not overturning the election
I think that counts as in insurrection. I realize a lot of long-time Trumpists and GOP establishment have a vested interest in pretending that what happened on J6 did not actually happen. But we all witnessed it.
Douthat is being deliberately obtuse. When you:
1) Falsely claim, over the object of every lawyer in the country, that the Vice President can unilaterally overturn the election
2) Summon your supporters to Washington with the express purpose of intimidating the VP and Congress into illegally overturning the election
3) Rile the mob up and send them to the Capitol to intimidate the VP and Congress into overturning the election
4) When informed a riot has broken out, refuse to call out the National Guard and send out tweets calling your VP a coward for not overturning the election
I think that counts as in insurrection. I realize a lot of long-time Trumpists and GOP establishment have a vested interest in pretending that what happened on J6 did not actually happen. But we all witnessed it.
Mike is being ironic.
Post a Comment