"Records are immutable" and "Recorded for posterity"

In an executive order on Monday pardoning or commuting the sentences of all 1,500 January 6 defendants, Donald Trump said he was ending "a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years" to begin a "process of national reconciliation."

Trump also ordered the Justice Department to drop in-progress prosecutions against accused January 6 perpetrators, resulting in orders written by several U.S. district court judges. Here is what they wrote in reaction to the dismissal of charges, and the pardons.

 

Judge Beryl A. Howell

No “national injustice” occurred here, just as no outcome-determinative election fraud occurred in the 2020 presidential election. No “process of national reconciliation” can begin when poor losers, whose preferred candidate loses an election, are glorified for disrupting a constitutionally mandated proceeding in Congress and doing so with impunity. That merely raises the dangerous specter of future lawless conduct by other poor losers and undermines the rule of law. Yet, this presidential pronouncement of a “national injustice” is the sole justification provided in the government’s motion to dismiss the pending indictment.

Having presided over scores of criminal cases charging defendants for their criminal conduct both outside and inside the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, which charges were fully supported by evidence in the form of extensive videotapes and photographs, admissions by defendants in the course of plea hearings and in testimony at trials, and the testimony of law enforcement officers and congressional staff present at the Capitol on that day, this Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement. The prosecutions in this case and others charging defendants for their criminal conduct at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, present no injustice, but instead reflect the diligent work of conscientious public servants, including prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and dedicated defense attorneys, to defend our democracy and rights and preserve our long tradition of peaceful transfers of power—which, until January 6, 2021, served as a model to the world—all while affording those charged every protection guaranteed by our Constitution and the criminal justice system. As to these two defendants specifically, both admitted their criminal conduct under oath, after consultation with their attorneys, and pursuant to plea agreements to which they agreed. Bluntly put, the assertion offered in the presidential pronouncement for the pending motion to dismiss is flatly wrong.

 

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan

More broadly, no pardon can change the tragic truth of what happened on January 6, 2021. On that day,“a mob professing support for then-President Trump violently attacked the United States Capitol” to stop the electoral college certification. The dismissal of this case cannot undo the “rampage [that] left multiple people dead, injured more than 140 people, and inflicted millions of dollars in damage.” It cannot diminish the heroism of law enforcement officers who “struggled, facing serious injury and even death, to control the mob that overwhelmed them.” It cannot whitewash the blood, feces, and terror that the mob left in its wake.  And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power. 

In hundreds of cases like this one over the past four years, judges in this district have administered justice without fear or favor. The historical record established by those proceedings must stand, unmoved by political winds, as a testament and as a warning.

Dismissal of charges, pardons after convictions, and commutations of sentences will not change the truth of what happened on January 6, 2021. What occurred that day is preserved for the future through thousands of contemporaneous videos, transcripts of trials, jury verdicts, and judicial opinions analyzing and recounting the evidence through a neutral lens. Those records are immutable and represent the truth, no matter how the events of January 6 are described by those charged or their allies.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

What role law enforcement played that day and the heroism of each officer who responded also cannot be altered or ignored. Present that day were police officers from the U.S. Capitol Police and those who came to their aid when called: the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Montgomery County Police Department, Prince George's County Police Department, Arlington County Police Department, and Fairfax County Police Department. Grossly outnumbered, those law enforcement officers acted valiantly to protect the Members of Congress, their staff, the Vice President and his family, the integrity of the Capitol grounds, and the Capitol Building-our symbol of liberty and a symbol of democratic rule around the world. For hours, those officers were aggressively confronted and violently assaulted. More than 140 officers were injured. Others tragically passed away as a result of the events of that day. But law enforcement did not falter. Standing with bear spray streaming down their faces, those officers carried out their duty to protect.

All of what I have described has been recorded for posterity, ensuring that what transpired  on January 6, 2021 can be judged accurately in the future.

 

 Judge Amy Berman Jackson

Moreover, a dismissal with prejudice would dishonor the hundreds of law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line against impossible odds to protect not only the U.S. Capitol building and the people who worked there – who were huddled inside in terror as windows and doors were shattered – but to protect the very essence of democracy: the peaceful transfer of power. It would dishonor those valiant officers who fulfilled their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” They are the patriots. Patriotism is loyalty to country and loyalty to the Constitution – not loyalty to a single head of state.

No stroke of a pen and no proclamation can alter the facts of what took place on January 6, 2021. When others in the public eye are not willing to risk their own power or popularity by calling out lies when they hear them, the record of the proceedings in this courthouse will be available to those who seek the truth.

 

Judge Paul L. Friedman

In this case, the government has not provided a factual basis for dismissal. The only justification is a citation to the presidential proclamation. The Proclamation itself ... attempts to justify dismissal by asserting that it is needed to "end[] a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and begin[] a process of national reconciliation."

The Proclamation's assertion is factually incorrect. There has been no "grave national injustice." And just because the Proclamation was signed by the president does not transform up into down or down into up as if peering through the looking glass of Alice in Wonderland. Mr. Warnagiris was charged with serious crimes and the abandonment of his case by the government does not justify or erase his criminal actions on January 6, 2021. 

...

The undersigned has presided over a great many of the January 6 cases, and other judges of this Court have done the same. In each of the cases, law enforcement diligently investigated the facts. The prosecutors from the Department o Justice and the United States Attorney's Office conscientiously presented the evidence to support the convictions — including powerful testimony from law enforcement officers and witnesses, as well as hundreds of hours of shocking videos of assaults on the Capitol and those trying to protect it. In each case, either a judge or a jury evaluated the evidence presented through the crucible of direct and cross-examination. Judges methodically applied the law to the facts or instructed juries to do so. The voluminous records created in these cases and the thoughtfully considered sentences imposed by judges of this Court will forever reflect that in the tumultuous time following the events of January 6, 2021, this Court was at all times a place of law and fact.

The latest from Does It Hurt To Think? is here.

There are always reasons

On Planet Earth, the Panama Canal is part of Panama, and managed by the Panamanian government under strict neutrality treaties that ensure equal treatment for all nations' vessels.

On Planet Trump, "American ships are being severely overcharged," and "China is operating the Panama Canal."

"We didn't give it to China, we gave it to Panama," Trump proclaimed in his inaugural address, "and we're taking it back."

No, China isn't operating the canal, and there's no legal way to take it back. At least Trump admits that we did indeed give it to Panama, which underscores the illegality of his concomitant threat.

Autocrats always find made-up reasons to exercise brute power, which is why the truth always matters, and why Trump's endless lying is endlessly dangerous.

For example, Vladimir Putin had his own made-up reasons for his illegal invasion of Ukraine. Historically, Ukraine was never an independent entity with its own identity, he said, but always a part of Russia. False. And Ukraine's leaders are "Nazis," he insisted. Ludicrous. In launching his war of conquest, Putin reneged on the 1994 Budapest Memorandum signed by Russia, under which Ukraine gave up its Soviet era nuclear weapons in return for respect for Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and existing borders, and for refraining from the threat or use of force against Ukraine's territorial integrity or political independence. So much for all that.

Now Putin says we're taking it back.

Even the most lawless thugs assert justifications for their lawlessness. Trump's false reasons include: "Panama's promise to us has been broken."

But no, American ships aren't being "overcharged," at least not in the sense that they pay higher fees than other nations' ships. All shipping is subject to the same fee structure, which varies based on vessel size. These rates are determined in public meetings by the Panama Canal Authority, ostensibly reflecting market conditions and operational costs. (There can admittedly be disagreements about whether the fees, which apply to everybody, are set at appropriate levels.) Recent increases have been attributed to severe drought conditions since 2023, which have led to historically low water levels in Gatun Lake, the canal's primary water source.

Ricaurte Vásquez Morales, the Panama Canal Authority chief, has emphasized that there are no exceptions to the rules, and giving preferential treatment to one country's ships would violate international law and "lead to chaos."

A Trump spokesperson pointed out that the U.S. is the largest user of the canal and thus disproportionately affected by fee hikes. But in what sense is the largest user paying the most fees unfair?

Crucially, Trump's claim that China is "operating" the Panama Canal is categorically false, so false as to properly be called a lie—particularly in the context of his threat that "we're taking it back." It is certainly true that there has been significant Chinese investment and commercial activity adjacent to the canal. Chinese companies operate ports on both the Atlantic and Pacific sides. But there are also ports operated by Taiwanese and Singaporean companies, and by an American-Panamanian joint venture. And ships transiting the canal need not use the ports at all.

Lest there be any misunderstanding here, my point doesn't involve any opinion about whether or not the current transit fees are set at appropriate levels. What I condemn is the thuggish threat of taking the canal back (even by force, as Trump has suggested), which would mean the seizing of sovereign Panamanian territory, and predicating that action on an outright lie, told to the American people and to the world. The lie thus becomes the "reason" for a lawless act. We should expect better of the United States (or maybe not), but obviously not of Trump.

Asserting lies to construct false realities is what autocrats necessarily do. Lying continually about almost everything is what Trump does. It's a noxious combination that's toxic to all our highest intellectual and ethical values. As a country, it seems we increasingly have neither.

Copyright (C) 2024 James Michael Brennan, All Rights Reserved

The latest from Does It Hurt To Think? is here.