The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Standing up for Civil Discourse
Erin Hawley’s op-ed shouldn’t distract us from the insurrection
I went to Yale Law School with Sen. Josh Hawley and his wife, Erin Hawley (then Morrow). I thought she was sweet, warm, and friendly. She didn't seem like the kind of person that would date Josh, let alone marry him. They shared conservative values, but I was surprised that his arrogance and obvious lust for power didn't turn her off.
I'm told by those who know her better than I do that Josh promised her he wouldn't run for office. If so, I'm puzzled that she believed him. I had predicted for some time that he would be Senator some day, and others made similar assessments independently. Whether with enthusiasm or reluctance, she appeared in his campaign ads and was a fixture on the campaign trail.
But only last week did she wade into the media fray. Her Fox News op-ed decries a crowd of not more than 20 people who appeared outside her home on January 4. They came with bullhorns to protest Sen. Hawley's plans to overturn the presidential election. Home alone with her infant, she understandably felt threatened when they allegedly yelled and pounded on her door. When the police told the protesters that they couldn't protest in front of a home, they dispersed.
Targeting politicians' families with such intimidation tactics should never be condoned. But if Erin Hawley thought a small group of protesters making a ruckus outside her home was terrifying, she should be positively livid about the much larger, violent mob that actually broke into the Capitol. But she's not. Instead, she wrote an op-ed piously calling for civil discourse the week of Donald Trump's impeachment trial—and said not a word about the insurrection.
She didn't mention the five deaths on January 6 or even the Capitol Police officer who died that day defending politicians like her husband, nor the two officers who committed suicide shortly afterwards. Not a word, either, about those officers who suffered brain injuries, lost eyes and finger parts, had protesters smash in their heads, suffered heart attacks, or still have PTSD after battling the mob for hours. No sympathy for those officers, Members, staff, and Capitol employees who contracted COVID-19. All these victims have families who must share the trauma of what happened. Of course, it's much more uncomfortable for Erin to address this subject when those who caused that trauma were greeted by Sen. Josh Hawley with an approving raised fist.
Rep. Jamie Raskin described the raw terror experienced by his daughter, who joined him at the Capitol just days after her brother committed suicide. Tabitha Raskin had far more reason to fear for her life that day than Erin Hawley did in her home two nights earlier. That mob wasn't 20 people outside shouting; thousands stormed the building and broke down windows, beat down doors, and attacked everyone in their path.
Josh Hawley's words and actions are not Erin Hawley's responsibility. But if she wants to talk about civil discourse on national outlets, she must include the insurrection—which he helped to cause. Sen. Hawley has been one of the prime proponents of the Big Lie that the election was stolen, the motivating theory behind the insurrection. Married to the Senator or not, if Erin steps back out on that campaign trail with Josh, she should be judged the same way any independent political actor would.
Erin Hawley hasn't gone quite as far (yet) as Ginni Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas' wife. On January 6, Ginni Thomas was sending messages such as "LOVE MAGA people!!!!" all over social media. But by positioning herself as the key victim of unruly protests in the United States the week of the impeachment trial, Erin is playing a clearly political role: distracting America from her husband's role in the insurrection and in the acquittal of Donald Trump. Once upon a time, I and others who knew her expected better of her.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This post is just a personal attack. It violates the Fallacy of Irrelevance.
The people who went into the Capitol were pro-democracy protesters similar to those in the invasion of the Hong Kong Parliament. The legislators are also similar to the Chinese Communist Party.
The deaths that followed are not attributable to the protest. The coroner report of the death of the police officer is not yet available. The other deaths were falsely attributed to the protest. Most people who commit suicide have depression or alcoholism.
That being said, everyone in the above story is an Ivy indoctrinated lawyer, and dismissed. Ilya is just emotional. He should restrain his emotions better. He is upset and filled with hate.
Troll level: Master.
Please accept this Master Troll award.
When a reply is so chock empty of rebuttal or indeed any information, it must be accepted as NewSpeak Truth.
1984 was about the Republicans and Fox News though.
You have violated The Fallacy of Irrelevance. Dismissed!
Another personal remark. Dismissed.
Irina calls for civil discourse then, she writes a mean spirited, hurtful, personal attack on a classmate she liked. This classmate was a nice person before. Now, this classmate has differing political views so must be destroyed by the left. Irina has no self awareness. She attended law school, especially, Yale. It made her an oblivious dumbass.
Not to mention, there was no insurrection. At most, a disrupted Congressional session. I mean, how serious can an insurrection be if the onsite 'leader' of this 'insurrection' is wearing a freaking bearskin and horns, and carrying an American flag.
Right. And the real question is why pelosi ordered the standdown of cops.
Also not to mention that her classmate’s husband was actually on site in the Capitol when the attack/insurrection occurred, which actually makes him a victim of the attack.
Having taken a recent class with Prof. Hawley, I understand why one would describe her as "sweet, warm, and friendly." She was unfailing informed, engaging, and open minded. The world would be better if more people were like her.
Irina Manta is not Ilya Somin, though?
Have you ever seen them together in one place?
Befitting their respective genders, Somin waves his TDS openly and continually for anyone who will watch, Manta is a more retiring type who aims to stab female Trump apologists in the back when she can.
People who want to overturn the result of a free and fair election are more properly termed 'anti-democratic.'
Not one word about the summer of rioting?
Not to mention protests that shut down traffic, etc.
Wow.
I mean, if Prof. Manta and others are upset about the riot at the capitol, they should be livid about the much larger riots that occurred all summer. But nary a peep.
It is the Theater of Outrage. They are Outraged, Outraged! about what those detestable deplorables Those People are doing. Those are their principles, and if you don't like them... well, they have others.
Twelve, you're definitely a smart person, read your comments for years.
Do you think there could be a different view of the riots (and I call them that) you speak of and the Capitol event given a key, and heretofore unprecedented challenge to our national democracy seemed to be the aim there?
This isn't the usual and tired internet trap, I'm genuinely interested in your answer as an obviously intelligent Trump supporter.
Thanks.
And yet another person with so little faith in the resilience of our form of government that they think the protest/riot/insurrection/what-have-you at the Capital could have overthrown or even threatened it.
Uhhhhhh what do you think would have happened if some of these people actually got in physical contact with Senators and Representatives or the Vice President?
Punching, maybe? It's not like any of them were armed. It wouldn't be the first time either. Sumner was nearly beaten to death on the floor of the Senate about 1850. The fact is that they didn't trash the capitol searching for people to execute. They didn't do anything of consequence. They just broke in, protested, and left.
Oh just punching? So kind of like how the mafia will beat you up but not kill you to intimidate you into doing what they want?
“The fact is that they didn’t trash the capitol searching for people to execute.”
Weird how they found all those weapons around the complex and people had flex cuffs looking for hostages.
I'm saying we need to keep things in perspective. You can't treat this like an insurrection because that would mean actual attempt to overwhelm and take over the government.
It's not good by any means, but pretending its the end of the world just undermines your case.
Because, of course you would try to overthrow the strongest country in the world -- with spears & bear spray....
Not many weapons, and if you were to search an equal number of vehicles elsewhere in DC, you'd likely find a lot more weapons.
Now guns *inside* the Capitol? Rounds discharged?
*One* round was, and was that USCP or private security?
I'm curious, can you see why people would be very concerned by a mob breaking in and punching the people certifying the official next administration?
These excuses are just absurd. I mean people are literally going with: legislators (some of whom were there with their families) just would have been physically assaulted and threatened, that wouldn’t have any affect on the legislative branch carrying out its duties.
Read this and confirm you don't believe a word of it, that your personal conspiracy theories have more merit.
Angry extremists who have overrun security being in physical contact with legislators they hate isn't a freaking conspiracy theory dude. It is a judgment based on human nature.
"Read this and confirm you don’t believe a word of it, that your personal conspiracy theories have more merit."
Facts are irrelevant. The feelz are more important, orangemanbad!
I'm not at all curious as to why you think a year's worth pf burn loot murder, dozens dead, billions of $$$, thousands of stores and livelihods destroyed, autonomous zones devoid of government set up by mayors ... just doesn't matter, but a three hour riot which didn't affect government somehow is teh most important news you can dredge up.
Your a statist, progressive, lefty, Marxian Democrat. But I repeat myself.
"I’m curious, can you see why people would be very concerned by a mob breaking in and punching the people certifying the official next administration?"
No -- not when the other side admits to conspiring to have 400 preplanned riots, to be activated via text
message, if their ballot box stuffing hadn't worked. See: https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/09/time-magazine-gushingly-profiles-the-successful-conspiracy-to-rig-the-2020-election/
No -- not when the other side tried to assassinate the entire GOP House leadership, seriously injuring Rep. Steve Scalise.
No -- not when the other side spent all summer rioting.
No -- not when Sen Rand Paul is first nearly killed by a psychotic Democrat and then placed in fear of his life leaving the White House after celebrating Trump's having won the 2020 nomination.
Queen Amalthea, do you remember what was done and said during the 2017 inauguration? That didn't bother you???
"Punching, maybe? It’s not like any of them were armed. . . . They just broke in, protested, and left."
That explains the serious injuries to uniformed officers.
These are your peeps, Conspirators.
Dumbasses. Misfits. Clingers. Right-wing rubes. Trump fans.
Bigots. Misogynists. Racists. Xenophobes. Gay-bashers.
Thanks for making it so easy for better people to defeat conservatives in the culture war.
Still wondering why strong law faculties ignore your invitation to emulate conservative-controlled, fourth-tier schools by hiring more movement conservative?
Artie. If I send you my email address can you scan your law school diploma to me? I have never seen any evidence of legal training in your comments.
Kirkland -- they are YOUR peeps -- the mentally ill...
That explains the serious injuries to uniformed officers.
What serious injuries? Still waiting on autopsies. Or you continuing your MO of just making shit up?
The cold has made you dumber, and more of a liar than before.
Many of them were in fact armed. They were in fact looking for Mike Pence to hang him (and Pelosi and Schumer), and did in fact build a gallows outside to do so.
Armed with what? Their left and right arms?
Armed with what?
Baseball bats. Hockey sticks—at least one of which had a screwdriver affixed to the shaft about a foot above the blade. Metal poles. Bear spray. Tasers. A few guns. Flex cuffs. Ropes. Body armor. And everything they could get their hands on to use as a projectile. Fire extinguishers, for instance. Even sections of bicycle rack.
Michael P, if you don't know this was intensely violent, then there are incompetent and dishonest media out there, and you have been watching them.
Michael P, if you don’t know this was intensely violent,
Yes, intensely...I remember that line ambulances in front of the Capital, loading up all the injured, and the breathless accounts, day after day chronicling all the victims in intensive care, fighting for their life, crowds outside the hospitals, praying for injuries to heal.
That's a protest prop, not a real thing. This is like saying that Madonna almost blew up the white house, and that Trump was almost assassinated by countless leftists.
It's cute (in a deplorable, despicable kind of way) that you think it wouldn't have killed someone to have been hung by a rope around their neck.
Those look to be 4x4 posts. Easily sturdy enough to support the weight of a human being.
Jason -- that gallows wouldn't have worked.
As opposed to the 3 bombs and 5 congressmen shot in years past.
Other than "Hang Mike Pence" and having built a gallows out front... sure, not at all searching for people to execute.
The gallows wouldn't have worked...
"Uhhhhhh what do you think would have happened if some of these people actually got in physical contact with Senators and Representatives or the Vice President?"
They would have been shot by the capitol police or secret service?
What would have happened? Nothing.
Remember when the Kavanaugh protestors got in and were spittle-flecked screaming into the faces of Senators? Probably less than that.
This 'I can take a punch' perspective is strange as a defense of battery.
Lots of people got punched both at the Capitol riot and the riots over the summer.
Congresspeople can take a punch just as well as anybody else, but of course any punching is unacceptable political discourse.
That's not how leftists see it. For them, violence that furthers their agenda is justified. "The ends justify the means."
Yup. A URI Professor has said that there's nothing morally wrong with murdering Trump supporters, and I didn't see much about civil discourse relating to that.
The left, with their slowing of the economy through regulatory burdens, leading to ever-increasing millions of needless deaths over the decades due to lagging development, probably shouldn't be getting into the business of justifiable murders.
"I’m genuinely interested in your answer as an obviously intelligent Trump supporter."
First of all, I am not an obviously intelligent Trump supporter.
"Do you think there could be a different view of the riots (and I call them that) you speak of and the Capitol event given a key, and heretofore unprecedented challenge to our national democracy seemed to be the aim there?"
It doesn't seem like much of a challenge. The certification was delayed for a few hours. It's also possible, of course, that the different view is based on motivated reasoning.
There was already the impression among many on the right that the left was downplaying the violence ("Fiery but mostly peaceful protests", etc.) AoC even supported it. So it comes across as disingenuous when people who were quite nuanced during the summer of violence are suddenly very outraged.
There was no "challenge to our national democracy," much less an unprecedented one. And for them, it was a defense of it not a challenge to it. People don't like when you suddenly change the election systems at the 11th hour using the China virus as pure pretext. On top of all the other nonstop lying and treachery.
We had a federal republic not a "national democracy" anyway.
M L, fun to watch you deny an insurrection and then justify an insurrection. Sort of a circus act, to amaze the crowd.
It's hard to justify an insurrection that wasn't.
Yes, TDS lives on.
Sure, keep drawing the comparison between people who protest because they don't like it when police shoot people for no reason and get away with it and people who storm buildings because their guy lost.
Good try, but all the really big protests were about a guy who died of a fentanyl overdose
Hear, hear.
Don't "finger parts" grow back?
No, I will preempt the snide question by stating that I am not a "lizard person".
Sometimes. I've grown back several fingertips. (Little accident with an industrial disk sander.) Not everybody can do it, and if you lose it past a joint, forget it.
Just once I'd love to see a Republican supporter discuss the Capitol Insurrection without referencing the rioters who scarred the BLM protests. It's as if they think one bad thing happening absolutely empowers others to do a similar bad thing.
Just once, I'd like to see any mention of the summer riots. Don't call them protests. They are Marxists, they murdered more people than died in the Capitol Building riot from non-murderous causes, they caused far more destruction from all their arson and looting, and several Democratic mayors were complicit in helping them set up autonomous zones devoid of the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution.
Bigoted conservatives don't like the way America is progressing.
Good.
Carry on, hater.
The BLM / Antifa riots resulted in about 20 deaths and a billion dollars worth of destruction, mostly suffered by the black and brown people you claim to care about.
Just once, I’d like to see you acknowledge this.
The El Paso shooting killed 26 people. The Tree of Life shooting killed 11. Both shooters cited extremist rhetoric about immigration that is in-vogue on the right as part of their motives.
Just once, I’d like to see you acknowledge this.
You want an armed insurrection? How about the lefty who shot up a Republican baseball game, came thiiiiis close to actually killing legislators.
Crickets.
Yeah that was immediately condemned, Bernie was on the senate floor within hours talking about it. Recall that both the El Paso and Pittsburgh shooters were endorsing the theory that elites (specifically Jewish ones for Bowers) were shipping in migrants to gain control of the country. All over Fox and conservative media they were talking about Soros caravans. After the shootings...this rhetoric didn't really stop.
And I'm not saying that the shootings were insurrections. Just that conservatives caring about liberals not caring about the summer riots is kind of weak sauce considering how easily they memory-holed the role of their immigration rhetoric in the shootings.
The shooting of active Congressmen isn't an insurrection?
Armchair, nope. Not that time. It could be, in different context. But that wasn't.
Insurrections feature stuff like follow on, leaders, followers, political objectives. They've got duration, and at least a bit of staying power. They've got heft. It takes military scale response to put them down. They become first memorable, and later historical. Whiskey Rebellion, insurrection. Shay's rebellion insurrection. John Brown's raid, insurrection. The Bonus Army, almost an insurrection. Trump's rebellion, insurrection. That guy who attacked the baseball game? Who was that?
"All over Fox and conservative media they were talking about Soros caravans. After the shootings…this rhetoric didn’t really stop."
Well, the caravans didn't stop, either. In fact, there's one on the way right now.
IT'S RIGHT BEHIND YOU
That was not an insurrection either. It was a "hate crime."
Specify the "extremist rhetoric"?
I looked up the ToL guy, and he appears to have been a generic neo-Nazi actually-a-White-Supremacist-for-real kinda guy.
If you believe that is "in vogue" on "the right", you ... might try getting to know some people who actually are on the right, rather than weird fever dreams?
We are certainly getting to know the folks on the right that trashed the Capitol in an attempt to overturn an election and "hang Mike Pence." Their own photos of pro-slavery Confederate flags, Parler postings, Twitter, Facebook, and many other aspects of their beliefs are there for us to see. Militia members & racists & QAnon conspiracy cultists the lot of them.
One need only scroll up in this very thread to see other folks on the right defending them. The "good people on both sides" and "stand back and stand by" kinda support. Maybe that's not what you consider "in vogue" but it sure looks that way given the news coming from right-wing sources like FOX, OANN, Newsmax, etc.
Are all conservatives supportive? No. But if Trump's approval ratings among conservatives is useful as a measure, over 70% are supportive. If the right wing media, politicians, and voters are all backing it, how is that not "in vogue?" Or is your complaint with the term because it implies that support is seasonal and temporary?
Every Trump voter is a bigot or an appeaser of bigotry. No exceptions. Most are bigoted in more than one direction. They cling to Trump because they are disaffected and desperate after decades of watching unearned White privilege erode and their preferred flavor of superstition fade in modern, improving America.
They should be stomped, figuratively, into cultural irrelevance. The only good bigot is a replaced bigot.
Stand aside, clingers. Your betters will continue to take it from here.
KevinP, already acknowledged at length. Not going to get into it again, just because you need a subject change.
Your turn. Acknowledge a violent insurrection, incited by Trump. With real intent to overthrow the election. That happened. Count on your great-grandchildren reading about it in history books, with plenty of evidence.
Don't pretend principles if you don't live by principles. Hold yourself to some kind of standard. And for god's sake, get yourself out of the Trump cult.
Selective prosecution and outrage goes to character.
We had multiple instances last year that could be reasonably called insurrections.
Most notably, the repeated firebombing of the Portland federal courthouse and the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. One of these involved armed people actively attacking federal personnel and troops. The other was an armed group outright declaring independence from the government. Both of these had multiple deaths by gunshot and numerous injuries. However, there was outright, repeated insistence that these were peaceful protests and arresting the instigators was a horrific crime against the first amendment.
The capitol hill riot involved five deaths, one was clearly accidental, one was shot by police, and the others appear to be from natural causes: strokes and heart attacks. The group that broke into the Capitol building was unarmed and did minimal damage. They never declared independence. They never fired weapons or threw bombs at federal officers.
Please, give me one reason why I should care more about the latter than the former.
Poor Yorick: "It’s as if they think one bad thing happening absolutely empowers others to do a similar bad thing."
Reality: Lots of GOP people have condemned Capitol violence. I have yet to see evidence validating your assumption of bad faith. Pointing out the fallacy of "insurrection" characterization, by pointing to recent lefty mob violence directed at other law enforcement officers and government property, is not the same as saying it was okay because it did not rise to the level of insurrection.
I can certainly see people thinking "if the other side" looks the other way, why not "our side"?
I don't defend either side's actions, unlike talking heads, depending on their side.
This is a complete joke. All year long, we had hundreds of events that were far, far worse on the left while Democrats and the media did all of the following: supported it, made excuses for it, ignored it, denied its existence, downplayed it, suppressed coverage of it. Then this one mostly peaceful protest happens on the right, and suddenly it's nonstop, hair on fire pants-shitting. It's impossible to reason with people who buy the media narrative and don't see this.
Problem is M L, I bought what I could see. And I could see it because a lot of it was recorded by insurrectionists themselves. I could hear them too. What they were yelling, what they were chanting. I think it's possible I saw and heard a lot more than you did, because you may rely on media curated to keep you from seeing stuff like that. When folks start going on about, "people who buy the media narrative," alternative reality looms as a factor.
Your comment is rather ironic in light of the post that we are responding to. Manta is playing the “whataboutism” game with Mrs. Hawley just like the Republicans you criticize.
It wasn't an insurrection. It was a riot.
When you start out with such a blatant lie, I won't read the rest.
They didn't want to stop the certification?
What's your explanation for all the autonomous zones set up with mayoral support in violation of the Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government, which resulted in murder, looting, and arson?
If you think an evening's riot is in any way more harmful than close to a full year of burn loot murder, and autonomous zones devoid of government, with government support, in multiple cities, then you are in idiot.
You can't see how there might be more concern about an attempt to stop the federal Executive transition than a local riot?
If you really want to turn it around, ask why they didn’t give a crap about the immigration-fear mongering mass-murders in El Paso and Pittsburgh (not to mention Christchurch).
Give them both the needle, or Old Sparky = El Paso, Pittsburgh murderers
But did any of them apologize for or reflect on how their immigration rhetoric, like "Soros caravans," were significant factors in the shootings?
LTG....I am having a hard time directly connecting 'Soros Caravan' or 'HIIAS policy' with the actions of the murderers. You leave out human agency. Those a-holes did what they did; they deserve death. They would have done what they did, regardless of the rhetoric. Particularly Bowers.
As an aside, political and social rhetoric is way overheated.
But to answer you directly....I have not heard anyone apologize for their overheated rhetoric. Quite the opposite. I read more 'double down' than 'retract'.
You can't see how there might be more concern over an entire year's worth of rioting, burning, looting, and murdering in dozens of cities, than a three hour riot which accomplished nothing except give Progressives wet dreams?
Conservatives weren't particularly concerned about the El Paso or Pittsburgh shootings (or any other for that matter), they've basically been memory-holed. So, maybe people think your "concern" over rioting isn't exactly in good faith?
Hmm, you didn't answer my question.
Me? Or Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf?
Progressives weren't particularly concerned about the baseball shooting which very nearly killed actual legislators, or the two Muslims (shhhhh!) who shot up San Bernadoo.
Except for Bernie being on the floor condemning it in the hours after. Oh and they wanted to do something about guns so people generally don't get shot again.
The Democrats did indeed move rapidly to condemn it.
The cynic in me wonders if they didn't move so fast to head off accusations their angry rhetoric spawned it, but even if true, whatever else, they jumped on it fast.
Conservatives reply late in this in similar situations, after Democrats have made hay about the right's over the top angry rhetoric.
Both sides' angry rhetoric is nasty and drives attacks and deaths. Time for more popcorn as the identical accusations sling back and forth. With gaping, agog mouths at accusations from the other side.
If "your angry guys kill more than ours" is your best defense, sad.
Micah X. Johnson's body count specifically of police at one BLM protest is larger than the number of people who died at the January 6th riot.
Before the existence of BLM.
(Almost) 20 years ago there were some leftists who tried to handwave away 9/11 by pointing out that 10x as many people die in car crashes every year as died on that date. That argument was stupid. In the same way yours was. Context matters.
Concern does not make a riot an insurrection. That word is just partisan propaganda.
Answer the question. Did they or did they not want to stop the certification and find a way to maintain Trump in power?
Did they have any means of doing this? Did they make any meaningful attempt to stop it? Or were they just making a serious nuisance of themselves by protesting in people's faces?
An insurrection would be if an armed tactical team broke into the capitol with the goal of taking down elected officials, holding the Senate hostage, or systematically cutting off the government in order to establish a new order.
A riot would be people breaking into the capitol, breaking and burning everything.
The low level of destruction makes this barely qualify as a riot. Calling it an insurrection is absurd.
They had flex cuffs, dude. People were looking for hostages. And they were seconds away from being in contact with people like Schumer and Romney and Pence. Again: what do you think would have happened if Eric Mucnhel or Larry Brock made physical contact with legislators?
The flex cuffs were picked up by two people who found then on a table and on the floor inside the Capitol Building. Their intent was to keep cops from using them.
The hostage drama is just more NewSpeak. It never happened, it was never planned, it is a figment of lefty propaganda.
Open wider, clinger.
Or not.
Your comfort is no longer much of a concern.
But you will comply.
The flex cuffs were picked up by two people who found then on a table and on the floor inside the Capitol Building. Their intent was to keep cops from using them.
OH WOW! You believed the guys in full tactical gear holding flex cuffs, just "found them" and didn't intend to use them when they said that in response to the possibility of being jailed. Great.
You are in full on denial mode Seriously: what do you think would have happened if Larry Brock or Eric Munchel got in physical contact with a legislator?
Well, no. I and likely others believe it because there's a video of the entire sequence recorded by a smartphone Eric Munchel attached to his chest. It's transcribed in the DOJ motion linked in my below post. Read it.
Yup.
Fine. I'll agree that they did find them. But why are you crediting the "I didn't intend to use them" when they were freaking looking for specific legislators and dressed in full tactical gear?
Where is you revidence they were actually looking for specific legislators?
I think you wouldn't know tactical gear if you were in the middle of a Marine clothing depot.
Maybe the part where Larry Brock was shown outside of Nancy Pelosi's office looking for her?
Here
Read that and confirm your bias, or adjust to reality.
No one, not even the Capitol police, are buying your conspiracy theories.
And this is exactly what I'm talking about -- you guys have to keep flitting around from one person to another, stitching up a fact here and a fact there, to try to support your story about what "they" were doing.
To wit, the picture in the affidavit you linked shows Brock standing around in the hallway looking away from Pelosi's office, not skulking around saying "heeeere, Nancy Nancy Nancy" while brandishing flex cuffs. This is literally narrative by collage.
Citation needed -- you now have the source to do that if you can.
For starters, because the worst picture the prosecutors could put together from the actual contemporaneous video of Munchel's entire trip through the Capitol was that he (1) picked up some flex cuffs; (2) went into the Senate gallery and yelled some stuff; (3) told everyone to put the flex cuffs down before they left the Senate gallery; and (4) left.
And beyond all that, if they were really intending to take hostages or anything even remotely subversive, they would have carried in their freaking guns instead of stashing them outside. There's not a contorted enough pretzel knot in existence to make all these facts line up with the breathless meme.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1352026/download
Brock was outside of Pelosi's office.
I really really don't get why you people insist that people who were in the capitol, dressed in tactical gear, who have posted extremist rhetoric for years and months beforehand, wouldn't harm legislators they had free rein over.
Oh, cute -- given the now undisputed fact that nobody brought flex cuffs into the Capitol but instead picked up ones that Capitol police (maliciously or incompetently -- take your pick) left sitting around, now just carefully say they "had" them and hope people just replay the month-long lie in their heads.
They did have them. You can't deny that. They could have just left them and not picked them up. And the "I wasn't going to use them" is kind of self-serving since it is being asserted in the context of being charged and detained.
Be honest. What would have happened if Eric Munchel and his mom, dressed in full tactical gear and carrying flex cuffs, had gotten into contact with Nancy Pelosi or AOC?
They said they picked them up to keep the police from using them.
One by one, we'll knock down your myths.
You're evading the question because you know the answer. They would have physically harmed those legislators. Maybe you don't want to answer because you're at work and the thought of it would get you aroused or something.
We have to admit that you have a brain. There is no evidence yet that you honestly intend to use it.
Be honest.
It would not have been a moment of power and glory for Pelosi. But that would not have made a riot into an armed insurrection.
LawTalkingGuy -
You should admit when you've been hoodwinked by the media. Which will happen all the time if you're not careful.
A false narrative was quickly created that there were people who came there with the means and intent to do harm, BASED ENTIRELY ON THIS ONE PHOTO of a guy holding zip tie handcuffs. Well, he didn't come there with the means nor the intent to kidnap anyone. That was all just a lie broadcast like a cruise missile around the world. And then later on, when the lie is revealed, the media is silent about it. One can't blame people too harshly for being tricked like this but at some point people have to wise up.
An insurrection would be if an armed tactical team broke into the capitol with the goal of taking down elected officials, holding the Senate hostage, or systematically cutting off the government in order to establish a new order.
You mean a failed insurrection doesn't count?
Like the baseball game shooting which actually targeted real live actual legislators?
Oh, they were Republicans, just fake news about fake legislators.
That was a terrible tragedy. And there was real harm done to real people. What I want to know is why you are pretending that the people in the Capitol somehow weren't capable of overpowering and harming unprotected legislators if they got into contact with them?
Oh, and that includes Republicans: Pence, Romney, McConnell, Sasse, Toomey, pretty much any of the ones who announced they were voting to certify.
The careful reader will note that you still failed to answer LTG's question:
Did they or did they not want to stop the certification and find a way to maintain Trump in power?
Whatever they may have thought they wanted to do, they never had any chance of accomplishing what you say they wanted to do.
No, it was not an insurrection.
They absolutely did. They were seconds away from being in physical contact with legislators.
That's one of those questions law professors debate with their students: Can you convict someone of murder if they intended to kill their victim but brought a water pistol? And what if it's a BB gun? Or a slingshot? And who has to prove all of this?
That's exactly right. Out in the real world, we generally treat it like the academic twaddle it is -- unless of course the Wrong Person is in the sights. Basically like what we just went through with the Logan Act.
Once again,
You mean a failed insurrection doesn’t count? An insurrection doomed to failure is no big deal?
Because that's what you are arguing.
And all the actual insurrections in the actual autonomous zones set up by mayors in violation of the Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government?
They don't count because you are only counting imagined insurrections which never succeeded. The ones which did succeed don't count.
I like how the desperate desire to attack Democrats requires you to sabotage your own argument. You desperately need to blame it on the Democratic mayors, except that undermines the entire claim about what happened.
I would call it a loud, boisterous and noisy protest. It was neither an attempted or a failed insurrection. I've seen actual insurrections (so have you), and this was not it. Were it truly an insurrection a lot of Congress would be rotting in graves. Instead, they comfortably caterwaul behind walls. Walls, I might add, that they oppose building on our border. The latent hypocrisy is pretty disgusting.
Now, the people who broke windows, destroyed property, or assaulted LEO's should sit in a cage for a while. There is no excuse - none - for property damage and assault. They knew better. Those protesters must pay a price for that. After a decent interval, say a year or two, the protesters should be released. Washington pardoned the Whiskey rebellion actors. Lincoln pardoned quite a few Confederate politicians. The precedent is there.
Maybe someone should pay a visit to Professor Manta's office to explain to her more directly the error of her ways in declaring Erin Hawley 'fair game'. Professor Manta is choosing to inject herself into this. So.....Is Professor Manta now 'fair game' and subject to picketers coming to her home (or her nice plush office at Hofstra) and utter death threats to herself and her family? Hopefully, Professor Manta will never find out.
Memo to Professor Manta: The measure you use to justify the actions of those who threatened Erin Hawley will surely be applied to you. Fate has a way of meting out just desserts, I have observed.
I doubt whether you have seen actual insurrections. Films of the Jan 6 riot certainly were not that except in the minds of propagandists.
Don Nico....January 2000, Quito Ecuador. It got a little hairy.
C_XY.
Interestingly, I have not heard any US news outlet call the long period of protests in Hong Kong an Insurrection.
Yet much more than the Jan 6 riot, the HK riots (or protests if you will) were an insurrection against the mainland government aiming to displace the authority of that government with that of a large segment of the HK population.
Well, the CCP certainly calls it that (insurrection). As for US news outlets...well Don Nico, they are not exactly impressing me with their objective reporting (left or right). Frankly, I get better commentary about American events from Israel (Times of Israel, Arutz Sheva).
Personnally I listen to NHK (JApan)
By that logic neither was the storming of the Bastille.
Some may have wanted to. Most just wanted to be heard. A lot were probably just going along with the crowd to see what would happen.
And even if there were some who wanted to stop the certification, in what universe did they have any chance of doing that? The universe where Bane hacking the Gotham stock exchange would have reduced Bruce Wayne to penury? (At worst, the count of the electoral votes would have been delayed.)
The universe where they were seconds away from physical contact with legislators?
The universe where the did NOT make physical contact with legislators?
Or the universe where actual insurrections succeeded all year long?
Most just wanted to be heard.
You know this how?
And what did they want to be heard about? Did they think there was a shortage of BS about the election being stolen, or a shortage of ways for them to express themselves short of breaking into the Capitol and threatening to kill people?
And you know contrarily ... how?
Um, they did stop the certification. Congress had to flee to safety, and the count stopped.
In my post, I clearly distinguished between stopping the count for good and delaying the vote count, which I identified as the worst that could have happened (and which in fact happened). Even if the protesters had occupied the Capitol for as long as other protesters occupied the Wisconsin Capitol in 2011--or as long as the National Guard has been occupying the Capitol grounds--the count would have gone on, but elsewhere.
Hey, the Bourbon monarchy was eventually restored, so I guess the French Revolution didn't happen either.
It (the electoral count, not the Bourbon restoration) couldn't have gone on, elsewhere, if members of Congress were being held captive.
And even if there were some who wanted to stop the certification, in what universe did they have any chance of doing that?
In the universe where happenstance goes a bit differently, and Pence gets intimidated enough to reject electoral ballots from swing states. Making that happen is what the insurrectionists were after. Pence had more backbone than they guessed, and they never got to him to make it worse, so they failed.
Pence was a hero that day. He should be remembered for it. Had Pence caved, there is no telling what upheavals would have spread throughout the nation.
I suspect evidence turned up by historians will someday fill in the gaps in what is already a pretty clear story. After that happens, today's Trump cult followers will be remembered collectively, for their inexplicable foolishness, but otherwise disregarded.
Pence gets intimidated enough to reject electoral ballots from swing states
Well, technically, that wouldn't be a universe in which the vote count was stopped, but one in which the count took a different turn. And even if that had happened, we could expect an immediate motion in each House to overrule the Vice President, followed by a vote to overrule him.
I think the game plan was to delay certification, to both provide time to challenge election results, and to pressure courts to allow challenges to election results. Possibly, though, to decertify enough EC votes so that nobody had an absolute majority, which would lead to a vote in the House by delegation as to who became President.
Both technically legal things to do, though very aggressive.
I've already said I thought Trump should, reasonably, have thrown in the towel on December 14th, when the EC voted. I mean, it's great that he was willing to fight, and it's something past nominees have conspicuously lacked, but there's such a thing as knowing when it's time to stop fighting.
No, not technically legal. There's no provision for electoral votes to be "decertified" in the first place, or for state legislatures to pick electors after a completed election.
Without even getting into the various clumsy attempts we've seen to create an insular "they" in this situation, what "they" "wanted" is an utterly irrelevant question. Unless we've truly reached the thoughtcrime era.
Secondarily, if protesters marching into a legislative building and making it difficult for the legislators to conduct their regularly scheduled business is "insurrection," there are several decades of retroactive prosecutions we need to get going on, stat. To the extent it needs to be said, most will involve the left. Are you with me?
Hello, you must be new here. Free reading tip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
And how do you plan to prove mens rea for the January 6 mob? Hint: Cherry picking a handful of people to testify that they intended to overthrow the government isn't sufficient.
It is if those are the people you're putting on trial.
I know by now you're an unserious person, Martin, but I'll provide exactly one serious response: Mens rea does not exist in a vacuum, but backs a specific act or acts. That I was referring to it in the absence of such a specific act or acts would be crystal-clear to most serious people from my use of the word "thoughtcrime."
Now go crawl back in your troll hole.
What a hopeless partisan. Surely the Conspiracy can find more interesting writers.
Seriously. I could read this stuff on HuffPo.
Prof. Volokh: your once outstanding blog has been descending into TDS for a long time. Simon and Adler are the worst, but this Manta scream is no help.
Adler and Somin are probably the second smartest and most consistent persons on the blog after Orin.
Eh? If consistency excuses incompetence, then Hitler and Stalin were geniuses. Mao, not so much, cuz he kept changing how he murdered people.
Adler and Orin are actually a very respected scholars who judges and justices actually listen to. They're hardly incompetent. Somin actually strives for a consistent approach to human liberty from all state coercion.
Somin said he would vote for Biden because Trump spent too much.
Trump slowed the growth in the bureaucracy, however little it was. Biden's going to push his green agenda and spend far more on far more bureaucracy, and is not rolling back Trump's tariffs.
So much for consistency.
Somin also cares a great deal about immigration. That's a huge reason for his opposition to Trump.
It wasn't his stated reason then, and it wasn't your stated reason just one comment ago.
Keep changing those goal posts, keep floundering, your convincing everyone of your own inconsistency at the same time as Somin's.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/30/why-biden-is-a-lesser-evil-than-trump/
Uh no. Literally mentions immigration a lot. Did you really expect anyone to believe that freaking Ilya Somin, he of the constant long blog posts about immigration, would confine his logic to voting for Biden to be about spending? Seriously dude?
A minor correction . . .
"the Capitol Police officer who died that day . . . "
Brian Sicknick died the following day.
And apparently not from being hit with a fire extinguisher.
If facts, logic and reason are offensive and racist, then civil discourse can get bent.
Facts, logic, and reason are derived from The Narrative and propagated by The New York Times and Washington Post.
Every form of racism and bigotry has been justified as the simple product of facts, logic, and reason.
All -isms are folk statistics, mostly true, most of the time. All woke people are deniers of statistics.
"If facts, logic and reason are offensive and racist, then civil discourse can get bent."
-- the bigoted misfits from the superstitious side of the aisle
blah, blah, blah.
Be nicer, Don Nico, or your betters may stop being so lenient toward vanquished bigots.
If you are who we have to worry about, I'm not very worried.
I'd been waiting for a wonderful Irina screed. This one is amazing. Equates private residences with public buildings. Ad Hominem attacks on people who she claims to have intimate knowledge of (but just as likely might not know who she is at all). Are we missing any of the regular beats?
When a mob of people angrily pounds on your door, and you're alone with your infant, not a cop in sight.
Of course you should be afraid.
The lack of real sympathy Irina shows here is awful.
"Home alone with her infant, she understandably felt threatened when they allegedly yelled and pounded on her door."
Once we waive away her offered sympathy as not real, mind-readers that we are, we can show how awful she truly is!
Libertarians are becoming indistinguishable from leftists.
Nothing says let's smash some windows, beat up on the police, and break into the Capitol like a raised fist 30 minutes prior, no?
Will Libertarians sign onto new election laws mandating mail in ballots, making future elections a game of which side can collect and/or manufacture the most votes?
Why do bigoted rubes hate mail-in ballots?
"Why do bigoted rubes hate mail-in ballots?"
You hate mail-in ballots? Why?
It's quite remarkable how every commentary these days titled something like "Standing up for Civil Discourse" is neither an example of civil discourse nor an attempt to stand up for it.
Take this particular screed by Professor Manta, for example. It begins with a personal attack on Erin Hawley, who is not a public figure and who merely wants to live in the peace and quiet that the law is supposed to guarantee. Her complaint is well-founded. So well, in fact, that a Fairfax magistrate issued a criminal summons for the leader of the mob that gathered outside her home.
Yet Professor Manta doesn't seem to care about Mrs. Hawley, except to remark how "sweet, warm, and friendly" she was before she became a Hawley, and to spread gossip suggesting that the Hawley's marriage is based on a lie. That's rank incivility no matter how you cut it.
And then there's the standing up part. Senator Hawley (along with dozens of other lawmakers) challenged the electoral certifications of Arizona and Pennsylvania, and he planned to challenge other states as well. His reasons for doing so were announced well in advance - it was to “highlight the failure of some states, including notably Pennsylvania, to follow their own election laws as well as the unprecedented interference of Big Tech monopolies in the election.” All of that was his right (if not obligation) under federal law governing certification and the U.S. Constitution. Actually standing up for civil discourse would be acknowledging that.
Yet Professor Manta doesn't do that. Rather, she does something completely different: peddles rank falsehoods. "Those who caused that trauma were greeted by Sen. Josh Hawley with an approving raised fist," she writes, as if the Senator led a violent mob. Reality is far from that false narrative. Hawley did raise his fist earlier in the day, but only because he was pumping it in response to wholly-peaceful cheers from the crowd that lawfully gathered outside the Capitol that morning. As was their right, under federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
One would think double-Yale-graduate Professor Manta would know that.
Or at least know better than to write such a transparently hypocritical screed as this.
Once upon a time - to borrow a phrase - I and others who believed in the professoriate expected better of it.
Stick with the Hawleys, you bigoted rube. It suits you.
My point exactly.
That right is suspended until she denounces her husband, Red Guard-style.
So it would seem.
As were so many other rights and norms in the era of Trump.
One is reminded of Bill Barr's prescient speech to the Federalist Society on November 15, 2019. And I quote:
"The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of 'Resistance' against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law."
How true indeed.
Well said.
Erin Hawley wrote an op-ed on Fox News. But responding to it is uncivil? Pretty weak sauce. Your whining is almost as pathetic as Bill Barr's.
Are you talking about Manta's tasteless attack on Hawley's wife, or the mob at their house? I'm unclear about which you're excusing.
You don't appear to have read Prof Manta's posting, or perhaps not understood that she isn't calling for "civil discourse" here but rather commenting on how Erin Hawley's call for civil discourse seems to be in bad faith for reasons she goes on to list.
If anything, I think you merely proved the professor's central thesis in your own response to her. Bravo.
It was neither his obligation nor his right. His obligation was to accept the counted votes. It is a ministerial function.
The first paragraph is completely rude. Such a "mean girl" comment. You ought to be ashamed.
Most people grow out of trivial youthful disappointments but you cannot get over that Federalist society election it seems. Pitiful.
Rude? Ashamed? Trivial disappointments?
Do you have any self-awareness about the movement you have supported over the last 5 years?
Trump sucking doesn't excuse her.
She wants to be "Standing up for Civil Discourse", so she ought to behave civilly herself.
LTG,
It was the typical bullying commentary.
"The first paragraph is completely rude. Such a “mean girl” comment."
Yeah, it's kinda funny that a post on "civil discourse" is largely mean-girl gossiping.
thousands stormed the building and broke down windows, beat down doors, and attacked everyone in their path
Hyperbolic statements like this undermine the point of the article. If thousands of people attacked everyone in their path, it would have been far worse than it was. There were a lot of people who acted violently, but not thousands, and there are videos of people interacting with the police and acting like it's a big party instead of "attack[ing] everyone in their path." The actual situation was bad enough, there's no need to go all "ZOMG it was literally Iwo Jima and the Civil War rolled into one!" (The received wisdom that it was an "insurrection" is already pushing it -- a riot is quite bad enough.) And the ad hominem "I knew her back when and thought she was a better person than it turns out she is" stuff doesn't help either, and really shouldn't be published. Who cares what some guy (did he mention he went to Yale Law School? because he totally went to Yale Law School) thinks about Hawley's wife back in the day?
"attached everyone in their path"
Yes, this is rank BS. There were certainly some incidents of rioters attacking police, but I also saw plenty of pictures of people walking peacefully (or even "mostly peacefully") through the halls of the Capitol. I even saw a video of a Capitol police officer in the Senate Chamber calmly asking Buffalo Man and his companions to be respectful, and of them agreeing to do so.
NOVA Lawyer and rilldrive earned prizes in the fantasy election contest. I hope they respond to this message to begin the process of arranging delivery of their prizes.
Prof. Manta deserves better than to be a beard and punching bag for a White, male, faux libertarian blog that is racist-friendly, gay-basher-curious, and misogynist-heavy.
She volunteered, in fact she advertised, to be a punching bag, full of hot air and fury, signifying nothing.
Prof. Manta deserves a spanking. Who would pay to see that?
Never, ever, ever be rude and nasty. You are a well mannered young lady, a Yale Law School graduate. Do you understand me? Ever.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0ayx2kQfPVI/maxresdefault.jpg
"I had predicted for some time that he would be Senator some day, and others made similar assessments independently."
Can we talk about the fact that only at Yale and 1-2 other institutions can law school students sit around predicting that this or that classmate will run for office -- and be right about many of them? A huge part of our problem in politics is that the country is run almost exclusively by a cabal of people who graduated from Harvard or Yale. There are 340 million or more American citizens, and no chance that this tiny demographic slice can represent them all.
I think all law schools have students who it is easy to predict will run for office and then it turns out to be right. Of course, usually it starts off with local office or state rep or something. You're right though that at Yale ,et al., they are correctly predicting who will be a U.S. Senator right off the bat. The funny thing is, that future Senator is probably going to come to power by railing against "elites"
Perhaps she realized, as many of us have, that sometimes you have to choose between a flawed person, and a bunch of raving lunatics?
Yes. That's why Trump lost the election.
Both Trump elections involved a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Sometimes you get the douche, sometimes you get the turd.
Trump lost the election because of cheaters like Artie.
Josh Hawley's words and actions are not Erin Hawley's responsibility. But if she wants to talk about civil discourse on national outlets, she must include the insurrection—which he helped to cause.
You keep saying that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
As Glenn Greenwald (not a MAGA-ist) explains, "Under the law, an insurrection is one of the most serious crises that can arise. It allows virtually unlimited presidential powers — which is why there was so much angst when Tom Cotton proposed it in his New York Times op-ed over the summer, publication of which resulted in the departure of two editors. Insurrection even allows for the suspension by the president of habeas corpus: the right to be heard in court if you are detained. So it matters a great deal legally, but also politically, if the U.S. really did suffer an armed insurrection and continues to face one. Though there is no controlling, clear definition, that term usually connotes not a three-hour riot but an ongoing, serious plot by a faction of the citizenry to overthrow or otherwise subvert the government."
The repetition of the word "insurrection" as if there were no question that that's what happened is becoming this year's "Russian collusion"--one of those things that the anti-Trumpers know for sure but that just ain't so.
Plus the idea that he "helped to cause it", even if it was not an insurrection, and thus she must address it when talking about a mob pounding on her door at night while she's alone is untenable.
It's a demand for a goddamn struggle session for her husband's wrongtalk, is how it comes across.
(That and I'm not at all sure we can blame Sen. Hawley for QAnon idiots and a bunch of sightseeing dumbasses breaking in.
His thing was "the election was hinky", no?
It plainly fucking was; denying that is ludicrous. Of course it was! We had ad-hoc improvised vote-by-mail combined with the general incompetence of local government AND some cheating.
There's always cheating, no surprises or change.
I don't even think the cheating changed the outcome, most likely, and I'm not sure there was any more than usual!
But you don't respond to perfectly plausible claims like that, and things that LOOK like cheating even if they have great explanations for why they're not by just demanding that IT DIDN'T HAPPEN SHUT UP CONSPIRACY HATER.
I mean, not if you want people to think the election was actually legitimate.
You ensure THAT by investigating things in a bipartisan manner, yes, even if some of "your side" [I refer here not to Prof. Manta, but to the Democrats who now control half of Congress and the Executive] get dinged here and there.
Because that's how you get people to believe things are fair, and to consider trusting your word on how fair things are.)
Thank you for pointing out the "big lie" that Democrats and the US media promulgated endlessly.
As foreign news outlets have wisely noted, Jan 6 was a riot, not more, not less.
Well, the parenthetical isn't really true. And the "explains" certainly isn't true; "asserts" would be better.
Nice hit piece by a holier than thou writer who is puffed up , full of arrogance.
"She didn't mention the five deaths on January 6 or even the Capitol Police officer who died that day defending politicians like her husband"
Probably because one guy had a heart attack outside the Capitol, another had a stroke outside the Capitol, another was accidentally trampled outside the Capitol, an idiot protester got shot to death by Capitol police, and the cop didn't die "defending politicians", but instead appears to have died of some unrelated medical problem.
By the way, how long has Irna been one of the Conspirators? I'm used to seeing her inane screeds in Reason, but I think this is the first time I've seen one in the Volokh Conspiracy. Not the first writer at Reason I'd think they'd want, unless they're extending membership solely on the basis of TDS these days.
when they allegedly yelled and pounded on her door"
Allegedly? there is video of it. what is wrong with you i guess there was allegedly rioting all summer as well.
I guess Mrs Hawley should have shot the protesters through the door like the police did to the woman protester on Jan 6th.
Per Biden, Mrs. Hawley should have knee capped them. Her defense could be, Pres. Biden told me to.
Only if she used a shotgun.
Civil discourse is a certified Good Thing(TM). But discourse about civil discourse is, at best, boring, and, all too often, whiny and hypocritical.
I didn't know Hofstra Law had a Potions Professor position. Congratulations on the headmaster position.
Might it be that "your house, at night, while you're alone" is different in kind from "a public institutional building, during the day, while armed security is there" (and, note, actually shot one of the invaders)?
Demanding that someone upset about people screaming at her, with threats to her safety because of her spouse also denounce people making politicians be upset and evacuate a building with their armed security force does not seem ... like a fair comparison?
(Now, if she had decided that screaming protestors banging on doors was fine if the target was a Democrat? That'd be weapons-grade hypocrisy, yes.
But ... I can't take the demand seriously in this context, because I think it's a serious difference in KIND.)
You beat me to it. This such an obvious distinction, that it takes a law professor to miss it.
What transcendent crap, and on so many different levels.
First off there was no insurrection, and secondly, wait...there just was no insurrection, that is really all that needs to be addressed.
There is an insurrection against Article I Section 1 of the constitution when the Supreme Court engages in judicial review. That Section gives all lawmaking powers to the Congress.
Or when rioters set up an autonomous zone in the shadows of a state capitol and then erect barricades physically keeping out police. That is an insurrection. Some tourists taking selfies, not so much.
"distract us from the insurrection"
Nobody who says there was an "insurrection" can be taken seriously.
Feels like I need to take a shower after reading that. That's just slimy, professor.
"Civil discourse", of course, means a stage whisper about how you have always hated some person's spouse for being such a slimeball and cannot believe they fell for the spouse's bullshit, while pretending that you are only addressing that person.
I would give the Prof A+++ for bullshit. There is a heaping pile of it here. I hope the next time some protesters with a history of violence show up at his house pounding on his door he says well this is all for the sake of democracy....
Standing up for Civil Discourse...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vr338REAkM
To rebuild civility, rather than pissing on its grave, how about finding some common cause that the different sides in America can work together on?
Maybe the space race with China...or for that matter any aspect of the competition with China? I picked the space race because it doesn't get into tariffs and other divisive topics.
I suppose there's the question of how to pay for it, but that never seems to be a real subject of partisan quarreling, so I guess it's all OK.
WOW ... who knew Irina Manta was such a BITCH?
Hey, watch the civility!
Don't worry about DWB. He's a clinger and therefore gets a FIRE-class pass around here. Clingers have little to fear from this blog's claimed "civility standards" or the Volokh Conspiracy Board of Censors.
Did someone pass gas?
*sniffs ... wrinkles nose*
I can't imagine why this link occurred to me suddenly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blonde_versus_brunette_rivalry
Nothing is more lazy and dishonest than describing the capitol riot as an "insurrection". The word was chosen by lazy and dishonest journalists in the Slack chats where they craft the narratives that will be regurgitated by partisan media over and over again. Then other lazy and dishonest partisans like Irina Manta and Jonathan Adler recycle the language of this pre-digested narrative.
Get rid of Manta, nobody needs these lazy and dishonest non-thinkers.
The word "partisan" doesn't mean what you think it means.
(I mean, obviously the word "insurrection" doesn't either.)
It's not like any of you partisan hacks can defend the use "insurrection" in the context of the capitol riot.
Goddamn. Look at you people.
Members of each tribe arguing for hours and everyone doing the same thing - minimizing the violence committed by your tribe and maximizing the violence committed by the other. No though. Completely ignoring each other’s points and responding to someone on the other side without addressing what they said, other than sometimes dismissing it with no explanation. No nuance, because nuance is weakness.
Whatever happened to just not liking violence no matter the cause or the perpetrator? None of y’all can do what should be a simple thing for a decent person to do. Why the fuck should any of us out here in the rational middle decide to vote for anyone that you broken-brain people support?
Wow. You are an asshole.
I expect better from the Volokh Conspiracy, this is just a nasty personal attack disguised as a post. Go home, you douchebag.