The kinds of things the 1/6 insurrectionist conspirators did

The ex-president's former chief of staff has stopped cooperating with the Democratic House investigation of the 1/6 coup attempt about who was involved and what they did. Nearly all congressional Republicans refuse to talk about it. The New York Times lists some of the reasons the Democrats are citing in their contempt of Congress charge against Meadows. Emails and text messages that Meadows had turned over and the House wanted to ask him about includes the following matters:

• A Nov. 7 email that discussed an attempt to arrange with state legislators to appoint slates of pro-Trump electors instead of the Biden electors chosen by the voters. Mr. Meadows’s text messages also showed him asking members of Congress how to put Mr. Trump in contact with state legislators.

• Text messages Mr. Meadows exchanged with an unidentified senator in which he recounted Mr. Trump's view on Vice President Mike Pence’s ability to reject electors from certain states. Mr. Trump “thinks the legislators have the power, but the VP has power too,” Mr. Meadows wrote.

• A Jan. 5 email in which Mr. Meadows said the National Guard would be present at the Capitol on Jan. 6 to “protect pro Trump people.”

• Emails from Mr. Meadows to Justice Department officials on Dec. 29, Dec. 30 and Jan. 1 in which he encouraged investigations of voter fraud, including allegations already rejected by federal investigators and courts

• Text messages Mr. Meadows exchanged with members of Congress as violence engulfed the Capitol on Jan. 6 in which lawmakers encouraged him to persuade Mr. Trump to discourage the attack, as well as a text message sent to one of the president’s family members in which Mr. Meadows said he was “pushing hard” for Mr. Trump to “condemn this.”

• Text messages reflecting Mr. Meadows’s private skepticism about some of the wild public statements about allegations of widespread election fraud and compromised voting machines that were put forth by Sidney Powell, a lawyer working with Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer.

Some of those things are truly damning for people who argue the 1/6 coup attempt was no big deal and not anything to be concerned about. It was a huge, deeply concerning event. It also shows the ex-president knew full well that he was fomenting lies about the 2020 election being stolen. The mendacity of the GOP on this matter is blatant. The lies should be shocking, but the the morally rotten ex-president and morally rotted Republican Party have normalized blatant partisan mendacity. These days, most everyone either expects blatant lies or they believe Republican mendacity does not exist, but Democrats lie all the time.

The NYT also pointed out that the Democrats cited Meadows’s new book “The Chief’s Chief” as evidence that his refusal to testify to Congress was untenable. His voluntary public statements in the book and social media show his willingness to talk about these issues. The 51 page House report[1] comments: “Mr. Meadows has shown his willingness to talk about issues related to the Select Committee’s investigation across a variety of media platforms — anywhere, it seems, except to the Select Committee.” 

Whether the House contempt charge allegation will amount to anything of significance for Meadows is an open question. The Biden administration has unilaterally abandoned the rule of law for Republican political criminals. That, coupled with the glacial pace of how House Democrats are proceeding, indicates that Meadows will probably face no significant legal repercussions. Once the Dems lose the House to the Repubs after the 2022 elections, Republicans in control will drop the 1/6 investigation. They will then rewrite history and simply state that the 1/6 coup attempt as just a teapot tempest of no significance.

 

Question: It is reasonable to think the Biden administration has unilaterally abandoned the rule of law for Republican political criminals? 

Footnote: 

1. The House resolution includes this: 

An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 192, the willful refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena is punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year. .... proving criminal intent in this context is no more than showing a ‘‘deliberate’’ ‘‘refusal to answer pertinent questions’’; it does not require a showing of ‘‘moral turpitude.’’ .... A committee may vote to seek a contempt citation against a recalcitrant witness. This action is then reported to the House. If a resolution to that end is adopted by the House, the matter is referred to a U.S. Attorney, who has a duty to refer the matter to a grand jury for an indictment.