June 18, 2022 – For those who had the fortitude to listen to the January 6 hearings, it was enough to make our nations’ deceased-forefathers weep, while giving us a history lesson on insurrection and seditious conspiracy. From testimonies of Bill Barr, former attorney general under the Trump administration, stating that Trump lost the election, to Trump’s own daughter acquiescing to the fact that her father did not win – and all the testimonies of those surrounding the president at the time – it is clear, that it was President Trump who wanted and desperately tried to “sway” the election in his favor – even after it became “clear” that he had lost. Despite testimonies of witnesses before and during the January 6 insurrection – and first-hand observations of Representative Liz Cheney, Vice Chair of the January 6 Committee, who was subject to the mob violence at the Capitol on January 6 – eloquently gave perspective after reviewing all the evidence, to conclude: “President Trump, summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.”
Criminality and Co-Conspiracy
Even though she supported her statements with documents and witnesses that collaborated the president’s role in “assembling the mob and lighting the flame of insurrection and discontent among many “trusting “Americans,” – there are still many “supporters” who erroneously, but truly believe the election was stolen – none based upon evidence – but just because he said so. This is mind-bending to say the least. But indoctrination in Trump’s own conjured fiction, where winning is the only acceptable outcome, has amassed a number of followers and co-conspirators – including a well-known conservative attorney, Dr. John Eastman. It was Eastman who provided Trump with false propaganda to make Vice-President the villain of the insurrectionists, failing to carry out Trump’s plan for Vice President Pence to “subvert” a “ministerial” act, to “certify” the vote count. Trump’s behavior is not only the cornerstone of criminal conspiracy, it is worse, as he indoctrinated “joint-venturers” in his crimes, manipulating unsuspecting Americans to become cult-like followers – attacking the Capitol, and threatening the lives of those inside, including Trump’s own Vice President. Testifying witness, retired Judge John Luttig, an American lawyer, scholar, and former United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit appointed by President George H. W. Bush – and whom Eastman once clerked,…explained in detailed terms how Dr. Eastman’s claims to “overturn” the election, were not only preposterous, had no basis in law, and was intended to knowingly subvert the rule of law.
There can be no doubt, the insurrectionists who drank the “kool-aid” became Trump’s co-conspirators, in a charade that makes a mockery of American Democracy, carried-out at the hands of the American people. These “followers,” believed in the lies, the illusion as presented by then President Trump – believing he had a legitimate gripe against the establishment – when all he had was his own fabrication of an illusory victim-hood and a bruised ego. To garner more credibility for his outlandish claims, he enlisted the aid of all the pawns he conned – indoctrinating them to believe in the same fiction, swearing to it – even putting their lives on the line for his outrageous claims of unbridled fraud, by every country clerk, and every precinct, and election commissioner in the nation. But how can people continue to believe lies, when facts squarely stare them in the face? And how can people continue to believe the lies when the truth is right in front of them?
Psychologists Weigh-In
Psychologist postulate the reason why people ignore the truth, even when it is right in front of them, there are a number of factors to consider. When it comes to picking and choosing a candidate for elective office, some people become heavily invested in their favored candidate – he or she becomes their “alter-ego” of sorts, and as such, they cannot readily accept “their” candidate did not win, or that they had been duped by lies and mistruths. Some even take the loss as a personal attack on their own character. But trying to overthrow the United States government…that is a bit too far for most rational Americans – conservative, liberal, and those in between. Research in this area has found that many who embrace this type of anarchy, also embrace hostility and vindictiveness as their reactionary style. This is clearly what was on full display for all the world to see, on January 6, 2021, at the Capitol.
Granted our nation has its problems, but those problems didn’t just happen in a vacuum, they have been cultivated for years under administrations of both parties – all of which makes every American less safe. And part of that “safety” many believe lies in the Second Amendment and gun rights. But these days, the amendment is read so broadly, there seems to be no legislative solution to unbridled lawless action – such as storming the Capitol. Yet, many in Congress and the public who support Trump ideologies and conspiracy theories, are still advocating the that Trump won the election, that it was stolen from him, as well as advocating the “good-guy” with the gun phenomenon – displaying what psychologists determine to be “a cognitive rigidity,” – that is they are inflexible as well as incapable of seeing the other side of what they have come to believe. And almost every time, that “logic” has failed to provide them the truth.
More Cognitive Dissonance on the Causes of Gun Violence
So what does the Second Amendment really say about who can possess guns?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Second Amendment, Ratified: 1791.
Yet, to read the second amendment correctly, we need to focus on the totality of the amendment, not just the section after the comma. But many who advocate for gun ownership without regulation, focus only on the right side of the clause, while those who advocate for common sense gun reform, read the left side of the clause – a well regulated Militia – as reason for what is written on the right. But what did the nation’s founders really mean? According to historical records, “armament” started out in Roman times and then under Queen Elizabeth I, as a means to have participation in a national militia – the end result, it failed. But, at the same time, the concept of armed militia gave credence to the framers of the US Constitution that protection using weaponry might be in order: tipping the scale to English and American history and its heritage, beginning in the 17th century, and to the American Revolution in the 18th. This “armament” provision was ultimately included in the Articles of Confederation dating back to 1781, and then drafted into the US Constitution circa 1787.
Based upon that history, it can be viewed that the original intention of the framers was to have a “well regulated Militia” to defend a new nation, to prevent tyranny, and give the citizenry of the new nation equal power as the states and the federal government. And as most modern-day legal theorists would explain, the framers could not have envisioned SWAT teams and “automatic weapons” at a time when muskets and flintlocks were the the rave of the 18th century.
So How Did We Get Here?
The Assault Weapons Ban was signed into law by Bill Clinton, in 1994 with bipartisan support, but with a provision that it would “sunset” in 10 years unless Congress acted to keep it going. But in 2004, under George W. Bush and a Republican-led Congress, it lacked the will to extend the ban, and no executive order ever issued by any latter-day Presidents – of either party, to re-institute a ban by fiat. Then came the first mass school shooting of elementary school children at Sandy Hook, four years after the ban’s expiration in 2008. And now, there is a mass shooting every time we turn around. Coincidence?
Why has nothing been done?
The National Rifle Association (NRA), is a major donor to many politicians, wielding more influence than any one of their constituents could – money talks, and often principles walk – including those that could kill and maim. But what about the constitutional significance of the second amendment and the influence it wields? Ironically, the essence of the rationale of the forefathers putting the second amendment in the Bill of Rights, was part of a plan for checks and balances of a provision in Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 which allows for the states to “engage in War,” waiving the requirement of congressional consent in cases of “actual invasion” or “imminent danger.”
According to scholars, these military issues loomed large in the founding period, because Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 also contain detailed provisions for the maintenance of state militias and the circumstances under which they could also be called into the service of the United States. Lastly, the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4 focuses primarily with the threat of invasion for which either congressional or presidential intervention is implicated. Notably, the inner workings of all these provisions are exceedingly complex, and none are set out in the Constitution.
Forefathers Were Mindful of Tyranny – Safeguards Built Into Constitution
There are reasons our forefathers put provisions in the Constitution for checks and balances – so tyranny could be quashed and quickly routed out. Yet, it appears those checks and balances “to call out the militia” aimed squarely at the January 6, 2021 insurrection – but instead, this “militia” attempted a coup to overthrow the US government. It appears the framers never envisioned a US president summoning and using “his own militia” to disrupt national governance.
In addition to routing out tyranny, the founders wanted to ensure that militias would be ready and able, at a moment’s notice to protect and defend. Yet, when the assault weapons ban lapsed in 2004 under the George W. Bush administration, tyranny would be allowed, once again to make it’s foothold with large magazines and automatic weapons on the streets of America, with guaranteed access to every American. But what about those who regularly lose their lives in mass shootings… in schools, movie theaters, churches and even grocery stores? What about the Constitutional protections for victims – their right to life?
Most Americans believe that reasonable gun legislation is necessary to curb the explosion of violence in the US. Many of the same majority believe legislation shouldn’t start in the womb – with an assault on women’s rights – it should start in the room – the classroom, protecting living, breathing kids against violent and deadly assaults upon them and their fellow classmates. This same logic would prevail for weapons in the hands of those who “believe” they are the militia, and they must protect the government – like January 6, when in fact, the insurrectionists are themselves the very threat to the government and democracy – the very threat they claim to protect against. Many captured for breaching the Capitol, did so espousing it was “their president” who sent them to “stop the steal” of votes away from him, a plan he masterminded months before to stay in power. Many of those who were captured while storming the Capitol, said they did so at the behest of our nation’s president, who told them, as “brave patriots” they needed to “take back the country” – even if it included force and death for members of Congress- and specifically, Vice President Pence. It was president Trump’s words, urging force if necessary, giving a presidential mandate of sorts, to “march down to the Capitol” and “take back this nation.”
Legislative Will
When legislators won’t admit, despite mountains of evidence that we have an unbridled violence and gun problem in America, this becomes everyone’s problem – gun owner, or not. If there is any hope to curtail the incivility that is plaguing this nation, there must be legislative will. But the “representative government”we have seems content in prolonging the inevitable: more carnage, and more tyranny against law abiding Americans across the nation. Now more than ever, Americans want change, they want a safer society, with laws in place to help ensure the safety of society as a whole, and a more “responsive” representative government. When police are outgunned, no amount of good guys with guns, can repel hoards of bad guys with guns – even bigger guns than the police. And now with the January 6 assault upon the US government, and the failure of government to react, waiting for the command of a president who actually put the insurrection in motion and refused to stop it – is something that must be considered by Congress so that January 6 can never repeat itself.
When the Rogue Meets the Road
When a rogue president creates a seditious rebellion in his own nation and its Capitol, there needs to be a policy and protocol to stop the carnage on the doorstep of democracy. What Vice President Pence did was brave, contacting all those who could summon assistance to the Capital that fateful day. Nevertheless, a rogue president still retained the reigns of power to withhold federal assistance – national guard and military aid, preventing expeditious dispatch of our nation’s protectors to the Capitol that fateful day. Instead, the nation’s Commander in Chief, allowed the rampage and the carnage to continue unfettered for hours on end. Many brave Capitol and DC Metropolitan police were severely injured and died that day, while the requisite federal government response was withheld by a vindictive madman, the former president.
With this knowledge in the rear-view mirror, it is incumbent upon Congress now acting quickly, and decisively to ensure that a rogue president can never, ever, abuse the reigns of governmental power again, turning hostilities and carnage upon itself, an insurrection of its own making. There must not only be checks and balances upon presidential power in times of internal crisis, but there must be consequences for those who abuse it.
A Crime in the Making
Joint-venturers, such as the former president, are in fact criminals, as it is their intent and purpose to participate in a plan or scheme with the intent and purpose of bringing about a criminal act – here the unlawful purpose and intent of ceasing the peaceful transfer of power, in order to stay in power – despite having “lost” a lawful election. Not only did the former president put in motion a plan or scheme to disturb the centuries-old equilibrium – the ceremonial peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected president, he did so with malice, intent and purpose to create an insurrection, a seditious coup, with reason to know the mob he summoned would harm, kill, and hang, his Vice President, and specifically designated Congressional officials. Not only did he know, he sent them. He also fanned the flames by “Tweet” during the attempted coup, withheld federal assistance to calm the mob, and exploited those he dubbed as “patriots” to carry out his illegal seizure of the Capitol – all for self-aggrandizement, and to retain power. He did so knowingly, willfully, and purposefully – creating anarchy, all for the unlawful purpose of remaining president.
For those who did not watch the events of January 6 unfold, these seditious “patriots” were outfitted with bombs, weapons, zip-ties, and even a hangman’s noose, to storm the Capital, kill and maim those who bravely fought them off – while the president continued to watch on TV and encourage by “tweet,” further enraging otherwise law-abiding people, to kill and destroy in the name of “saving” democracy. Unfortunately, like everything else he has done, this was just another con by Trump to “retain the presidency.” Yet, unknowing supporters still believe in him despite all the testimonies and video evidence. This truly exemplifies “cognitive dissonance” – detachment from reality by supporters that “their” leader is a conman, a criminal, a cult leader – who used his “supporters” to carry out crimes, not for “saving” democracy, but for flouting it to benefit himself.
If all of this is not a crime, I don’t know what is.
Copyright, 2022: Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. All Rights Reserved.
This article may not be reprinted in full or in part without permission.
Stay tuned for my upcoming book: No Honor, Your Honor – All the Way to the Top – The Fallacy that Justice is “Blind” …but Not if You are a Woman
Watch our programming and download our podcasts – The Legal Edition – Legal, Business & Policy News