Did Jan. 6 threaten ‘our democracy’? Or prove the republic still works?



Like Dec. 7, 1941, Jan. 6, 2021, has taken on a mythic stature that surpasses the actual events of that day. Trump’s opponents view it as an “insurrection” — a deliberate attack on the Constitution, carried out by his supporters at his command to illegally overturn the 2020 election by threatening members of Congress. Many of his supporters, though, see it as a protest that spiraled into chaos, ensnaring citizens who never intended harm but wanted to express their belief that the election had been unfairly conducted.

I do not consider the events of that day an insurrection, nor do I believe that all those arrested received fair treatment. Still, Jan. 6 was a dark day for the republic — an act of lawlessness that stains Donald Trump’s legacy.

As Lincoln stated, no matter how desirable our goals may be, 'there is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law …'

I do not believe he intended to overthrow the constitutional order. Instead, the events reflected the folly of taking politics to the streets, a tactic once favored by the left. More than anything, Jan. 6 exposed the dangers of unrestrained democracy — a threat America’s founders understood all too well.

The Great Seal of the United States proclaims that the American founding represents a novus ordo seclorum — a new order of the ages. The Constitution of 1787 was a remarkable achievement, establishing a commonwealth designed to protect the natural rights of all citizens. At the same time, understanding the founding requires looking to the past, particularly to the taxonomy of regime types identified by Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, the founders of political science.

What the Greeks knew

Greek political science differs from modern political science by focusing on fundamental questions. What is the best form of government? What system best ensures citizens’ excellence (areté) and happiness (eudaimonia)? What causes political communities to decline?

In contrast, today’s political science fixates on minutiae. Modern scholars, adopting a value-free perspective, struggle to explain why one form of government is superior to another beyond personal preference. As a result, they increasingly write more and more about less and less.

For the Greeks, political constitutions directly corresponded to the human soul (psyche). They divided the soul into three parts: nous, the intellective, reasoning part; thumos, the spirited part, concerned with honor and justice; and epithumeia, the appetitive part, which governs basic desires and is especially vulnerable to passions.

Each type of government, according to this framework, reflected a part of the soul. In this political taxonomy, the noetic part of the soul corresponded to rule by one; the thumetic part to rule by the few; and the appetitive part to rule by the many.

Each system had both good and bad versions. In a just system, rulers governed for the benefit of the entire polity. In a corrupt system, they ruled for their own benefit. The Greeks classified kingship as the good form of rule by one, while tyranny was its corrupted counterpart.

Aristocracy was the noble form of rule by the few, while oligarchy or plutocracy represented its decay. The good form of rule by the many was politeia, or a balanced constitution — a concept the Romans translated as res publica, best rendered in English as “commonwealth.” The corrupted version of rule by the many was democracy in its worst form: ochlocracy, or mob rule.

The founders feared unbridled passion and mob rule, which led them to reject democracy. They saw it as easily corrupted and unstable, prone to constant turmoil and disorder, and just as much a threat to citizens’ rights as tyranny or oligarchy. Democracies, they believed, were especially vulnerable to demagogues who could manipulate the masses.

To prevent this, the U.S. Constitution deliberately established a self-governing republic — the virtuous form of rule by the many.

Republic vs. democracy

No founder articulated the dangers of democracy — the perils of unchecked passions — better than Alexander Hamilton. Like most of his contemporaries, he viewed the American Revolution as an act of deliberate action, designed to secure the natural rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

However, Hamilton also recognized that revolution is inherently lawless. Before establishing a government that safeguards rights and liberty, men must first “dissolve the [existing] political bands.” But revolutionary fervor, he warned, is ill suited for maintaining a stable political society — even one dedicated to protecting individual rights.

Hamilton understood that a passion for liberty was necessary if the cause of American independence was to succeed, but that ultimately it had to be tempered by the rule of law. As he said during the New York Ratifying Convention in 1788,

In the commencement of a revolution … nothing was more natural than that the public mind should be influenced by an extreme spirit of jealousy … and to nourish this spirit, was the great object of all our public and private institutions. Zeal for liberty became predominant and excessive. In forming our confederation, this passion alone seemed to actuate us, and we appear to have had no other view than to secure ourselves from despotism. The object certainly was a valuable one. But Sir, there is another object, equally important, and which our enthusiasm rendered us little capable of regarding. I mean the principle of strength and stability in the organizing of our government, and of vigor in its operation.

Passions unleashed in the fight for rights can ultimately destroy those very rights. Individual freedoms survive only when society maintains a strong sense of law and order.

Hamilton was alarmed by calls for “permanent revolution,” a theme that dominated Thomas Jefferson’s rhetoric. He saw Jefferson’s dismissive and intellectualized response to Shays’ Rebellion and the French Revolution — expressed in statements like “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” and “the Tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants” — as a dangerous philosophy. To Hamilton, this mindset invited chaos and guaranteed frequent upheaval rather than stable governance.

He believed that the solution was to instill respect for the Constitution, binding Americans to the rule of law. Though a creation of the people, the Constitution imposes necessary constraints that must be respected while it remains in force.

Hamilton argued that attaching people to the Constitution’s rule of law would preserve the new government as if it were an ancient institution. This stability would allow for the just administration of laws, without which the Revolution’s central aim — the protection of rights — could not be secured.

Through both words and actions, Hamilton worked to temper popular passions and connect citizens first to their state constitutions and then to the federal Constitution. He defended New York Loyalists after the Revolution, a position he reinforced through his "Phocion" letters. During the ratification debates in 1787 and 1788, he vigorously argued for the new Constitution, emphasizing its role in securing national stability.

As treasury secretary, he promoted fiscal responsibility, stressing the necessity of paying debts and honoring contracts. Within Washington’s administration, he sought to subordinate American gratitude to France and enthusiasm for the French Revolution to the dictates of international law.

Nothing better illustrates Hamilton’s commitment to moderating revolutionary fervor than a letter he wrote to John Jay around the same time he was crafting his own revolutionary pamphlets.

The same state of passions which fits the multitude … for opposition to tyranny and oppression, very naturally leads them to contempt and disregard of all authority. … When the minds of those are loosed from their attachments to ancient establishments and course, they seem to grow giddy and are apt more-or-less to turn into anarchy.

Lincoln: Passions vs. reason in politics

In his 1838 speech to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, “On the Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,” Abraham Lincoln warned against the dangers of mob violence in pursuit of political goals. He saw it as a sign that unchecked passions were overtaking reason.

Lincoln identified the greatest threat to American freedom and prosperity not as a foreign enemy but as an internal danger. “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher,” he declared. “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times. They have pervaded the country …

Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocratic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed — I mean the attachment of the People …

… Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence. —Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws …

Lincoln allowed that there were bad laws, among which he included the laws supporting slavery.

When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made. —I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay; but, till then, let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.

But he maintained that “there is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law …”

The mobocratic spirit and Jan. 6

Political conservatives consistently denounced political violence, including the unrest that followed Trump’s 2016 election victory, the riots and destruction that erupted after George Floyd’s death in May 2020, and numerous other instances of domestic looting and property destruction carried out by left-wing groups in recent years.

Yet as former U.S. prosecutor Andrew McCarthy noted, the central charge against Trump regarding Jan. 6 — that he undermined the Constitution’s electoral process — is difficult to dispute. He gave the mob assembled that day the false impression that Vice President Mike Pence had the authority to overturn Joe Biden’s victory. More importantly, he failed to quickly and decisively use his influence to call off his supporters, denounce violence, and urge them to leave the Capitol grounds.

McCarthy contended that if Democrats had pursued an impartial investigation rather than overreacting for partisan purposes, they could have built a compelling case that Trump violated his constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution while faithfully executing the laws. A thorough congressional inquiry would have produced stronger articles of impeachment. Instead, Democrats omitted key allegations, allowing them to frame the riot as an “insurrection” for political advantage.

As McCarthy argued, the congressional January 6panel “was a blatantly partisan, monochromatically anti-Trump political exhibition that presented the country with a skewed picture, eschewing cross-examination and perspectives that deviated from its relentless theme: Trump’s incitement to insurrection had our democracy hanging by a thread.”

In the end, the riot of January 6 did not “prevent the peaceful transition of power.” Was the peace disturbed? Yes ...

... that’s why so many people have been prosecuted, some for serious offenses, and many others for trivial crimes that the Justice Department would normally decline to charge. But there was so little damage done to the Capitol that Congress was able to reconvene a few hours after order was restored. It promptly affirmed Biden’s victory, as it was always certain to do. No one tried to blow up the Capitol. No one tried to mass-kill the security forces. Our Constitution held firm, and there was never any reason to suspect it wouldn’t. Our democracy was not realistically imperiled, much less at the precipice of annihilation.

Ultimately, January 6 did not represent a threat to “our democracy” but instead illustrated why the Founders prudently established a republic rather than a democracy. They understood that democracies justify behavior such as occurred that day. Deliberation and the passage of laws by representative bodies are designed to permit prudence to curb the passions. As Lincoln stated, no matter how desirable our goals may be, “there is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law …”

Trump’s blanket pardons offer hope and healing



Processing the events and emotions of the past week has taken time. BlazeTV documented my immediate reaction to President Trump’s sweeping pardons, commutations, and case dismissals. In a five-minute video recorded right after I learned Trump kept his promise, I struggled through tears and jumbled words to share my thoughts.

Over the past few days, I’ve come to terms with the reality of my January 6 case being “dismissed with prejudice.” I’ve also absorbed the reactions of other “J6ers,” whose own legal battles ended last Monday, as well as the responses from media pundits and politicians. As expected, reactions range from positive to negative. (I’ll delve deeper into this in a future piece.)

While Blaze Media and BlazeTV have covered my January 6 journey at length, a quick recap might be helpful for those unfamiliar with my story.

What I did and didn’t do

I traveled to Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, intending only to cover the final rally of Trump’s first presidency. I brought my camera, tripod, a microphone for street interviews, and extra batteries to capture reactions to the speeches scheduled for the day. My primary question was whether the so-called kraken would be unleashed — the final proof of an allegedly “stolen election.”

When it became clear that no such announcement would come from the speechmakers, including President Trump, a colleague and I began a mile-long walk to the Capitol building. Additional speeches were planned on the Capitol lawn at six separate, legally permitted “First Amendment Protest” events.

By the time we reached the west side of the Capitol’s outer perimeter, at about 1:15 p.m., there were no barricades or “Closed Area” signs — something I later learned had been breached and removed before our arrival. Hearing sirens, seeing smoke, and witnessing flash-bang grenades, we sprinted to the Lower West Terrace. There, at exactly 1:19 p.m., I turned on my camera and began documenting the events that would alter my life.

I followed the story wherever it led. An hour later, I was inside the Capitol building with thousands of protesters and around 80 other journalists and media personnel. I exited 37 minutes later through the Hall of Columns and out the south doorway. During that time, I committed no acts of violence, resisted no law enforcement, and caused no damage to Capitol property.

Media and news organizations worldwide quickly licensed my videos, which were featured in documentaries by HBO, the New York Times, the Epoch Times, and numerous others. I began writing accounts of that day and delved into investigations of the key figures and most puzzling anomalies related to January 6.

In July 2021, the FBI contacted me to request a voluntary interview. Because of my recognized status as “media,” the FBI needed written approval from the U.S. Attorney General’s Office. After my attorney negotiated and secured this agreement, I participated in the interview in October of that year. On November 17, 2021, my attorney received an email from Assistant U.S. Attorney Anita Eve, stating, “Your client will be charged within the week.”

To my shock — and admittedly, some amusement — the charges included a felony count of “interstate racketeering.” The Department of Justice alleged that I knowingly conspired to cross state lines (from North Carolina) with foreknowledge of an illegal event to profit from documenting and licensing footage of the activities.

Going public

On the Monday of Thanksgiving week in 2021, we sent a press release to over 200 media outlets, launching a public counteroffensive against the government’s absurd allegation. I did dozens of interviews with various news outlets, including newspapers, magazines, TV shows, podcasters, and bloggers.

This strategy caught the government off guard. No other individual accused of a January 6 crime had taken such an approach. The result? The government went silent for 20 months — no response, no action. During this period, my coverage of the January 6 trials and investigations into the conduct of certain U.S. Capitol Police officers gained attention from members of Congress and major media platforms, including Tucker Carlson.

Sources within the Capitol Police and the Justice Department informed me that officials were “not happy” with my reporting. In the spring of 2023, I was granted access to 41,000 hours of Capitol closed-circuit TV footage — all while I continued working independently, unaffiliated with any news organization.

For nearly 1,600 January 6 defendants, the government went too far. It repeatedly trampled due process, destroyed lives over misdemeanors, and handed down egregiously unfair sentences.

In early July 2023, Matthew Peterson, the new editor in chief of Blaze Media, reached out to discuss bringing my work to the publication as a contributor. In the final week of July, before we finalized my contract, my attorney informed me that a D.C. grand jury had subpoenaed all my January 6 videos.

Grand juries are not convened for misdemeanor offenses, so they were obviously looking for a reason to charge me with a felony. Twenty months after going silent, with growing national attention to my work as an independent journalist, I had become confident that the government had decided not to pursue charges against me.

I was devastated by this news. Not only because of the renewed legal jeopardy, but I was certain that Blaze Media would withdraw the offer. You know the drill.

“Hey, Steve. We really love your work, man. And when you get all this legal stuff behind you, call us back, and we may have a place for you here.”

I sat on this news over the weekend, not informing Peterson at Blaze Media. My attorney picked up the subpoena on Monday morning, confirming my worst fears. I then posted to Twitter that I was back in the government’s crosshairs.

My phone rang. It was Peterson. I assumed this was the bad-news call I expected. Peterson nervously laughed and said, “Uh … it looks like I need to get you a contract … right away.”

I broke down in tears. This wasn’t the response I expected from any corporation. We finalized an agreement that afternoon, and by Wednesday morning, I made my debut on "The Glenn Beck Program" as a Blaze Media contributor.

The government makes its move

After complying with the grand jury subpoena, we heard nothing from the Justice Department until December 14, 2023. While sitting in Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie’s office, I received a text from my attorney: “You need to call me ASAP.”

A message like that is never good news. I stepped into the hallway of the Rayburn Congressional Office Building and called him. He informed me that the FBI had just contacted him, saying I needed to surrender within the week.

My next call was to Peterson. The company sprang into action, booking me on all BlazeTV programs, including Glenn Beck's. Other major media outlets quickly picked up the story. By the end of the next day, the FBI agent called my attorney back to say the bureau would postpone my arrest until “sometime after the holidays.”

Early the following week, Peterson called me again. Was this the other shoe dropping at last? No. Instead, he told me Blaze Media wanted to hire me as a full-time investigative correspondent with full benefits. Once again, the tears flowed. Who are these people?

On March 1, 2024, I was finally compelled to report to the FBI’s Dallas field office for arrest on four basic misdemeanor charges — the same charges leveled against hundreds of January 6 defendants. Despite their efforts, the Justice Department couldn’t make a felony charge stick. Nearly 38 months after January 6, 2021, I was brought before a Dallas magistrate in leg irons — for nonviolent misdemeanor charges.

I’ll spare you the details of the legal battles over the next eight months involving my attorneys, federal prosecutors, and Judge Christopher Cooper. Suffice it to say, I wanted to go to trial despite Cooper’s consistent denial of every motion we filed and his generally hostile attitude toward me. Since then-candidate Trump was openly promising pardons for January 6 defendants, we believed it was crucial for my trial date to occur after January 20, 2025, in hopes that he would win the election and end the proceedings in my case.

Judge Cooper, however, refused to grant a continuance, holding firm to the November 12 trial date originally set on the court’s calendar.

November 12 — exactly one week after the election. The timing wasn’t favorable for me, regardless of the outcome. In 2020, 95% of the D.C. jury pool voted for Biden. If Trump won, jurors might seek revenge. If Kamala Harris won, they’d feel emboldened to bury me. And Cooper’s dislike for me was plain to see.

Still, my attorneys were optimistic. They believed presenting a selective prosecution defense could force the government to explain why it hadn’t charged over 80 other journalists — mainstream, independent, bloggers, podcasters, social media influencers, credentialed, or uncredentialed. If successful, this strategy could lead to a landmark decision.

Alas, it was not to be. On November 6, the day after Trump won the election, I appeared before Judge Cooper at a pretrial hearing. The session was brief and brutal, as he denied every motion for discovery, a continuance, and even my right to argue a selective prosecution defense.

Immediately after the hearing, I joined a Zoom call with my four attorneys. One of them remarked, “This trial will be nothing more than a shaming exercise.” With that in mind, I instructed them to notify the prosecutors and the court that I would not proceed to trial and would instead plead guilty to all four misdemeanor charges.

I fully understood that it would take at least two months to be sentenced after my guilty pleas. I also recognized that if Trump fulfilled his promise to pardon nonviolent January 6 defendants, I would be in a unique legal position. Under federal law, a defendant is not considered “convicted” until sentencing, even after pleading guilty.

I took the risk. After I entered guilty pleas to all four charges, my sentencing was scheduled for March 6, 2025. If Trump kept his word, my case would be dismissed and the entire four-year ordeal would conclude — technically and legally — as if it had never happened.

The truth about January 6

Two months before joining Blaze Media, I spoke at a Wake County Republican Women’s Club luncheon in Raleigh, North Carolina. During my remarks, I made what I thought was a simple filler comment: “Whatever the Oath Keepers may or may not be individually guilty of, the one thing they are not guilty of is the crimes for which they were convicted.”

Unexpectedly, more than 100 women in the audience rose to their feet in a standing ovation. In that moment, I realized that America hadn’t lost its desire for true justice in the January 6 cases, even for those convicted of seditious conspiracy.

This wasn’t just the largest investigation and dragnet in American history — it was the most politically motivated mass persecution.

At the time, Fox News had just fired Tucker Carlson and largely abandoned January 6 coverage. For those of us working to expose the Justice Department’s weaponization, it was clear that the American people’s demand for real justice — and their frustration with the Biden DOJ’s witch-hunt — was growing. Trump must have sensed it too, as his promise of pardons became a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign.

Americans understand government overreach because resisting it is why this nation was founded. It’s in our DNA. Trump’s fulfillment of that promise on his first day back in office wasn’t just anticipated — it was a crucial factor in his November victory. Perhaps the decisive one. Because Americans want true justice for every citizen, regardless of the crimes those citizens may or may not have committed.

For nearly 1,600 January 6 defendants, the government went too far. It repeatedly trampled due process, destroyed lives over simple misdemeanors, and handed down egregiously unfair sentences. This treatment stood in stark contrast to D.C. rioters from 2017 and 2020, who often committed far worse crimes but saw their cases dismissed or received mere slaps on the wrist from the same D.C. judges and juries.

Relief, gratitude, and the need to heal

Initially, I advocated full pardons for all nonviolent January 6 defendants and a case-by-case review for the others. But in recent months, my stance shifted toward blanket pardons for everyone. Why?

It’s straightforward. Pick any case file from the nearly 1,600 defendants, and within five minutes, I could show you where the government violated basic due process rights or where judges allowed prosecutions to proceed under predetermined, unwinnable scenarios for defendants. Worse still, many defendants endured literal torture at the hands of their jailers.

Given the overwhelming complications and extenuating circumstances, reviewing each case individually would have taken months, if not years. Blanket pardons were the only just solution.

On the evening of January 20, I was stunned by Trump’s decision to grant blanket pardons, commutations, and dismissals with prejudice. Vice President-elect JD Vance and attorney general nominee Pam Bondi had already hinted at pardons for the nonviolent with case-by-case reviews for others. Trump’s final announcement and signature left me breathless.

It was the right decision and exactly what was needed. Even the most violent January 6 defendants had their rights trampled by Biden’s Justice Department. Trump’s courage and action brought tears to my eyes — and still do as I write this.

For nearly four years, I’ve said I saw bad people doing bad things on January 6. I also saw good people doing good things. And I saw otherwise good people doing stupid things.

This applied to both sides of the police line that day.

Critics decrying the pardons and commutations of the violent defendants fail to grasp the extent of the Biden administration’s weaponization against all January 6 participants — the violent, the rowdy, and the accidental tourists who walked through open doors to snap a selfie in the Rotunda.

This wasn’t just the largest investigation and dragnet in American history — it was the most politically motivated mass persecution. Nonviolent participants suffered severely for the minor offense of glorified trespassing. Those who assaulted law enforcement officers have already faced severe penalties, some warranted and others unconstitutional.

The president did the right thing. Let the healing begin.

Heavier police presence at ABORTION marches than on January 6? Guerrilla reporter tells all



As the Trump administration begins making serious moves, the chance of violent leftist-run protests is going up.

Richie McGinniss — a guerrilla reporter and author of “Riot Diet,” who’s been on the ground at riots from the Jacob Blake riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, to the left's favorite January 6 Capitol riot — knows exactly how to prepare for the chaos.

“After Kenosha, Glenn Beck bought me this bulletproof backpack, which is now my safety blanket,” McGinnis tells Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson of “Blaze News Tonight,” recounting his experience at the January 6 protest. “I had my bulletproof vest and my ballistic helmet and my gas mask, and I arrived on the western front just before 2 p.m.”

“My credentials got swiped because I was so well-prepared, they assumed I had to be some scurrilous agitator,” he continues, noting that upon his arrival, he had some serious questions.


“How come there’s only 140 Capitol police officers defending this line with 10,000 people behind me?” he asks. “It just made no sense why D.C., a place where the cops are prepared, unlike Kenosha, where the cops actually know how to deal with these protests.”

“I’ve seen abortion marches with more police presence and a better perimeter around the Capitol than what I saw on January 6,” he continues, explaining that now that Trump’s in office, he should make getting to the bottom of what really happened that day a serious priority.

“I want to see an investigation into who was making the decisions for what security should be there. Obviously, the head of the Capitol police retired immediately afterward, resigned immediately afterwards, and there’s still a lot of open-ended questions as far as who made the decisions for that perimeter to be set up,” he adds.

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

January 6 pardons: Who qualifies, and what can we expect?



Social media is abuzz with questions and speculation about what the pardon process might be for persons convicted for their actions on January 6. These questions were supercharged by a comment attributed recently to an unnamed “transition official,” who said all convictions would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, throwing a wet blanket on the expectations and demands by some that President Trump should pardon everyone convicted of any crime stemming from that day.

The transition official’s comment suggests that some individuals, including those already convicted or awaiting trial, might not receive any relief from the Trump Justice Department starting January 20 or afterward.

A case-by-case process is unlikely to be as complex as some might fear.

For those wondering about the basis for my “informed speculation,” here’s how I’ve formed the views expressed here.

After serving 21 years as a federal prosecutor in California and Hawaii, I transitioned to private practice in 2013, focusing almost exclusively on federal criminal defense. Since October 2021, I have represented defendants charged in connection with the events of January 6. Blaze News readers may know me as Steve Baker’s defense attorney.

To date, I have defended approximately 90 clients facing these charges. I have handled 10 trials — three of them jury trials — with my 11th trial starting in nine days and my 12th scheduled for January 6, 2025, marking the fourth anniversary of the Capitol protest.

With nearly 99.9% of all January 6 defendants convicted of at least one crime — a fact, not hyperbole — the outcomes I have achieved for my clients are among the best in this field. That is also a fact. However, this area of practice inevitably leaves many dissatisfied to some degree. Some clients seek to place blame on their attorney, and while there are a few disgruntled detractors, it is an occupational hazard that comes with this challenging territory.

I receive at least half a dozen calls each week from clients whose cases have concluded, asking how I believe the pardon process might work once implemented. I plan to handle pardon applications for all my convicted clients and will also represent other January 6 defendants seeking pardons who prefer not to use their previous counsel. (For more details, look for updates on X.)

Here is the basic answer I have given all who have asked.

1. First, President-elect Trump, based on his public statements and reports, has promised relief for those convicted. However, his comments are often — though not always — paired with the condition that relief applies only to “nonviolent” offenders. A transition official’s remark that the process will involve a “case-by-case” review has sparked demands from some in the January 6 community for blanket pardons, regardless of the circumstances or conduct involved.

2. Even so, a case-by-case process is unlikely to be as complex as some might fear. If the initial dividing line is between “violent” and “nonviolent” offenders, much of that groundwork has already been laid by the Biden Department of Justice over the past four years. Individuals charged with and convicted of the four basic misdemeanors are, by definition, “nonviolent” offenders.

A case-by-case review could simply group those cases for pardons at the outset. This group represents the vast majority of all January 6 cases — approximately 1,100 to 1,200 defendants fall into this category.

3. A second category of “nonviolent” offenders will likely include defendants whose sole felony charge is a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 231 — “civil disorder.” This offense involves impeding or interfering with police efforts to disperse a crowd and end a riot. Common scenarios include failing to leave when ordered or crossing a police line after it has been established. In cases where no other charges are filed, this has been the felony charge used by the Department of Justice.

If there was physical contact with law enforcement, the charge typically escalated to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111 — “assaulting, interfering, etc.” with law enforcement officers. The main distinction between the two charges, which are otherwise similar, is the presence of actual physical contact. A Sec. 231 charge applies to actions that make the officers’ job more difficult without physical violence.

Because Sec. 231 does not involve violence directed at police, any January 6 defendant convicted solely of this felony — and there are a few dozen in this category — would also qualify as a “nonviolent” offender eligible for a pardon.

4. A third category of “nonviolent” offenders will likely include defendants whose sole felony conviction is a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 — the “obstructing Congress” charge that the Supreme Court undermined in Fischer v. United States. Since the Fischer decision six months ago, the Department of Justice has not clarified how it can apply this charge to January 6 defendants under the narrower interpretation outlined by the Supreme Court.

For defendants with pending appeals of their Sec. 1512 convictions, cases have been sent back to trial courts for further proceedings in light of the Fischer decision. These proceedings typically involve resentencing without the Sec. 1512 charge included. However, the situation is more complicated for defendants who pled guilty to Sec. 1512 and waived their right to appeal. Because they have no active cases to return to trial courts, their situation remains unresolved.

For these defendants, pardons would address the issue, recognizing that the Sec. 1512 charge should not have been brought in the first place. Since Sec. 1512 does not involve violent conduct, cases where it is the only felony conviction should be included in the same pardon category as Sec. 231 convictions.

5. That leaves two broad categories of felony convictions: violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111(a) and (b) — “assaulting, interfering, etc., with federal officers” — and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1361 — “destruction of government property.” These convictions will likely require a case-by-case analysis of each January 6 defendant’s actions.

My estimate, though not based on detailed statistics, is that fewer than 400 defendants fall into these categories. The challenge with including them in a blanket pardon is the existence of video evidence documenting each defendant’s actions, which could become political fodder in future elections.

I have clients in this category and will advocate aggressively for their pardons. However, these arguments will need to be individualized, focusing on all video evidence of their conduct on January 6, the Department of Justice’s failure to prosecute similar actions by protesters in other circumstances, and the disparities between sentences in January 6 cases and those handed down in other protest-related prosecutions.

These are arguments we were not allowed to present fully during their defense but should be carefully considered when evaluating their eligibility for pardons.

Caution with conspiracy theories

I understand better than most the extent to which the deck was stacked against January 6 defendants navigating the federal criminal justice process in the District of Columbia. This firsthand knowledge makes me sympathetic to the views expressed by many online — including some of my clients — that the unfairness of the process justifies blanket pardons for all defendants, regardless of their convictions.

However, some of the claims made by boosters of this position include allegations for which I have seen no supporting evidence. These include some of the more baseless “conspiracy theories” about the events of January 6. Having reviewed almost all the available evidence, I can confidently say that I have found nothing to substantiate these theories.

Perhaps a Trump Justice Department investigation will uncover evidence I have not seen. But I know that many of the most popular social media conspiracy theories are contradicted by actual evidence — evidence that proponents of these theories often choose to ignore.

I can’t endorse those conspiracy theories by using them as a basis to justify claiming that everyone should get a pardon based on such conspiracy theories

For nearly three years, while arguing for my clients in sentencing hearings, I’ve consistently observed the diverse motivations and actions of those who attended the events on January 6, 2021. Most participants had attended the rally at the Ellipse, but not all. A significant majority — I would estimate over 90% — came to Washington, D.C., to hear Donald Trump speak, without any intention or expectation of going to the Capitol after the rally. I’ve heard this explanation dozens of times over the past three years: Attending the rally was their primary reason for being in D.C., while going to the Capitol was unplanned and spontaneous.

But that explanation does not account for everyone.

A few bad guys among thousands

Among those who went to the Capitol, I’ve argued that the vast majority — in the tens of thousands — intended only to protest and did nothing more than observe the events between 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. A smaller subset of this group moved closer to the Capitol and went inside, but their actions were limited to walking around for some time before exiting. This group of January 6 defendants — roughly 1,100 to 1,200 individuals — has faced only the four basic misdemeanor charges.

Second, a segment of the crowd went to the Capitol intending to do more than simply observe. They aimed to loudly and passionately voice their objections to the certification of the Electoral College vote, hoping to persuade GOP members of Congress to delay certification. However, they had no preconceived plans to engage in further action beyond gaining Congress’ attention. These individuals pushed their way to the front and displayed more demonstrative behavior. This group included January 6 protesters who, for the most part, were drawn into clashes with law enforcement. These confrontations often resulted from law enforcement’s attempts to disperse the crowd using measures like flash-bangs, tear gas, and pepper spray.

Third, a much smaller group came to Washington, D.C., seeking conflict, expecting Antifa and other anti-Trump extremist groups to engage in violent clashes with pro-Trump protesters. These expectations stemmed from previous attacks by extremist groups on Trump supporters during the “Million MAGA March” on November 14, 2020, and the “Jericho Rally” on December 12, 2020, both in D.C. Discussions of these incidents were widespread in online communications, particularly among members of the Proud Boys — who were attacked on December 12 — and the “Three Percenters.”

Within this third group, some individuals were simply “bad actors,” drawn to the prospect of “finding trouble” for its own sake. For them, the potential for a fight was the main attraction. Many in this small subset had prior criminal records and were well acquainted with the inside of a jail or prison cell. I know this firsthand, as more than one has been my client.

The real travesty

Much of the suspicion and criticism of the protesters arises from their attire and gear — body armor, helmets, goggles, pepper spray, bear spray, and similar items. However, many critics fail to recognize that the violence on November 14 and December 12 motivated these individuals to come equipped for protection. Notably, they avoided bringing firearms to D.C.

The gear was intended for defensive purposes, not to confront law enforcement, but to guard against anticipated attacks from left-wing extremist groups. This fact has been consistently ignored in the Department of Justice narrative, but I will emphasize it on behalf of my clients who came prepared with such items.

The real travesty is that many defendants in the second group, who will likely face case-by-case reviews, have no prior criminal record. Many have military or law enforcement backgrounds, having served their country without prior involvement with the criminal justice system. I have numerous clients charged with Sec. 111 violations who fit this description. Their actions on January 6 were often driven by high emotions and a reaction to what they saw unfolding around them. They did not come to the Capitol intending to fight with anyone, including law enforcement.

Unfortunately, these defendants are often grouped into the same category by the Department of Justice narrative as those in the third group — the small number who came to D.C. actively seeking a fight and saw the Capitol as the venue for that confrontation. These third-group cases deserve the most scrutiny on review, but the increased attention could unfairly affect second-group defendants, whose actions were fundamentally different.

This conflation may harm the chances of second-group defendants receiving pardons, as their conduct could be viewed as similar to that of the “bad guys” who came looking for trouble. This is a real concern in ensuring fair outcomes for those who do not belong in the same category as the third group.

Countering the ‘official’ narrative

From my experience handling numerous cases, I know that government prosecutors and FBI agents have frequently — far more often than an acceptable error rate — mischaracterized and exaggerated the conduct of January 6 defendants as shown on video evidence. In every case I have handled, the Justice Department has provided the most egregious interpretation of the evidence, often to the point of deliberate misrepresentation. This behavior is dismissed as “zealous advocacy,” which may be acceptable in standard litigation but violates a prosecutor’s ethical duty to “seek justice.”

To secure plea deals, January 6 defendants have been forced to accept these mischaracterizations as factual. The government presents its statements of fact as non-negotiable, requiring defendants to take them or leave them. With a conviction rate of 99.9%, defendants seeking the benefits of a plea agreement have had no leverage to have their perspectives included in the factual basis reviewed by judges.

This approach has had significant consequences for defendants, but that is a broader discussion for another time.

Many January 6 defendants who undergo case-by-case reviews will benefit from the opportunity to present their own interpretation of what the video evidence shows. For most of my clients, this will be the first chance to argue what the video depicts — or does not depict — without being constrained by a signed factual statement coerced by the Justice Department “at the barrel of a gun.”

That said, and while acknowledging the legitimate complaints about undergoing the criminal justice process in the District of Columbia under these circumstances, some January 6 defendants were convicted of actions that constitute criminal acts against law enforcement. These are offenses that would have been prosecuted as crimes regardless of where or when they occurred.

That might be unpopular for some to read, but it is the truth.

Help is here

In a few days, I will announce a pardon initiative that I will offer free of charge to any January 6 defendant who wishes to seek a pardon but prefers not to work with the attorney who handled his original case.

The Trump administration may ultimately decide that no submission of materials is required for the pardon process it establishes. But given the references to a potential “case-by-case” analysis for some or all cases, I will be prepared to file materials on behalf of my clients who wish to pursue pardons.

As mentioned earlier, I will also extend this service to other January 6 defendants seeking pardons.

More details to follow.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at Shipwreckedcrew’s Port-O-Call on Substack.

Pelosi taps Liz Cheney for Jan. 6 committee. Despite GOP Leader McCarthy’s threats, Cheney accepts.



House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday announced that she will appoint Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) to serve on the new select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to create the committee, which will combine the various House investigations into the events of Jan. 6 under one roof. Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), two of the most vocally anti-Trump Republicans, were the only GOP lawmakers to join Democrats in voting to establish the select committee.

"We are very honored and proud she has agreed to serve on the committee," Pelosi told reporters during her weekly news conference.

The committee will consist of eight lawmakers appointed by the speaker and five lawmakers nominated by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) "in consultation" with Pelosi.

Pelosi said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) will serve as the chairman of the committee. Thompson was the Democratic architect of a deal struck with Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.) to form a bipartisan investigation into the Jan. 6 riot, but that legislation died in the U.S. Senate. The other Democrats Pelosi tapped include Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), Stephanie Murphy (D-Calif.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Elaine Luria (D-Va.).

Cheney's inclusion on the committee is a finger in the eye to McCarthy and the rest of the GOP conference, who kicked her out of Republican leadership for her vocal criticism of former President Donald Trump. Cheney was the highest-profile Republican to vote to impeach Trump, whom she blamed for instigating the violence at the Capitol, claiming he "summoned" the rioters there and then "lit the flame of this attack."

In a statement, Cheney said she was "honored" to have been asked to join Pelosi's select committee.

"Congress is obligated to conduct a full investigation of the most serious attack on our Capitol since 1814. That day saw the most sacred space in our Republic overrun by an angry and violent mob attempting to stop the counting of electoral votes and threatening the peaceful transfer of power," she said.

"What happened on January 6th can never happen again. Those who are responsible for the attack need to be held accountable and this select committee will fulfill that responsibility in a professional, expeditious, and non-partisan manner."

McCarthy led Republicans in opposition to creating the select committee after also opposing the failed bipartisan effort. He has not made any indication about who he intends to appoint to the select committee, and on Wednesday, he threatened to strip away the committee assignments of any Republican lawmaker who accepted an offer from Pelosi to join the Jan. 6 investigation.

The Democratic majority on the select committee is likely to seek details of McCarthy's Jan. 6 phone conversation with Trump as part of its investigation. McCarthy has accused the committee of being a "partisan" effort by Democrats and his threat to Republicans appears to be an effort to prevent any probe into his conversation of having the appearance of legitimate bipartisan inquiry.

Cheney was apparently unfazed by the threat, but given how she is reviled among Republican voters for opposing Trump, her presence is unlikely to persuade many that the investigation is anything but a political stunt.

Mike Pence booed and called 'traitor' at Faith & Freedom Coalition conference



Former Vice President Mike Pence was greeted Friday with boos and shouts of "traitor!" as he began an address to a group of social conservative activists in Kissimmee, Florida.

Pence talked over the boos, which came from a minority of the audience at a conference hosted by the Faith and Freedom Coalition. There were also loud cheers and applause when he began his speech and when he delivered his signature line: "I'm a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order."

Pence gets drowned out by hecklers at the Faith & Freedom Coalition summit, some of whom appear to be chanting "tra… https://t.co/Exan1ojWxQ

— Andrew Solender (@AndrewSolender) 1624034568.0

Pence was the final speaker to address the evangelical activist voters Friday morning, following other Republican officials including Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Socially conservative Christians represent a significant voting bloc in the Republican Party.

According to the Tampa Bay Times, none of the other speakers were heckled by the crowd, which consisted of hundreds of the Republican Party's activist evangelical voters. But dozens of attendees left the room as Pence approached the podium to speak. The hecklers were quickly removed from the audience by security.

The accusation of "traitor" hurled at Pence is a reference to the former vice president's refusal to obey former President Donald Trump's demands to unconstitutionally block the certification of the 2020 presidential election results for President Joe Biden as he presided over a joint session of Congress.

Trump had pressured Pence to discount certain Electoral College votes from states where he contested the election results, claiming widespread fraud had rigged the election for Biden. Pence had refused to do so. In a statement to Congress, the former vice president explained that he did not have the constitutional authority to "determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not."

On Jan. 6, after it became clear that Pence would not stop the certification of the election results for Biden, a mob of President Donald Trump's supporters marched on the U.S. Capitol building and then trespassed inside in an attempt to interrupt the joint session of Congress. Violence broke out, and several Capitol Police officers were assaulted and severely injured by rioters who ransacked government offices and stole government property. One of the Trump supporters, Ashli Babbitt, was shot to death by a USCP officer who remains unidentified.

Some of the rioters made calls to "hang Mike Pence" for betraying Trump.

After the hecklers were removed from the Faith & Freedom Coalition event, Pence finished his speech, praising the Trump administration's accomplishments over the previous four years including funding the development of several COVID-19 vaccines and protecting religious liberty. He strongly criticized the Biden administration on several points, claiming Biden is insufficiently supporting Israel and weak on the immigration issue.

"When I was vice president, I visited the southern border," said Pence, taking a veiled shot at Vice President Kamala Harris, who has not yet visited the southern border since being appointed by Biden to handle the ongoing immigration crisis.

Pence is widely assumed to have presidential ambitions in 2024, should Trump decide against running again. Though a significant portion of Trump's supporters regard Pence with hostility after the events on Jan. 6, a poll conducted in March that asked Republican voters who they would support in 2024 if Trump does not run had Pence leading the prospective GOP field with 19% support, followed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at 17%.

Senate report on Jan. 6 riot calls on Congress to fund the police, identifies security failures that led to attack



The United States Senate released its bipartisan report on the Jan. 6 Capitol riot Tuesday, highlighting the "security, planning, and response failures" of the U.S. Capitol Police and the Capitol Police Board along with "critical breakdowns involving several federal agencies" before and during the events of that day.

The report was put together by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the Committee on Rules and Administration. It is the first and so far only bipartisan review of how rioters trespassed at the U.S. Capitol, ransacked government offices, stole property, assaulted and severely injured Capitol Police officers, and sought to stop a joint session of Congress from carrying out its constitutional duty to certify the Electoral College votes for president and vice president of the United States.

The Senate report made several recommendations, including to give the Capitol Police chief more authority to respond to crises, to give law enforcement better planning and equipment — with additional congressional funding — and to make intelligence sharing between federal agencies more efficient.

"The January 6 attack on the Capitol was an attack on democracy itself. Today's joint bipartisan congressional oversight report from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the Rules Committee details the security and intelligence failures in the days leading up to the attack, the lack of preparedness at the Capitol, and the slow response as the attack unfolded," Homeland Security ranking member Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said. "We make specific recommendations to address key failures in the Capitol Police Board structure and processes; ensure Capitol Police has the training and equipment necessary to complete its mission; update how the intelligence agencies assess and issue intelligence bulletins, particularly as it relates to social media; enhance communications between the chain of command at the Department of Defense; and ensure timely and effective cooperation and coordination amongst federal, state, and local law enforcement. We must address these failures and make the necessary reforms to ensure this never happens again."

"Thanks to the heroic actions of U.S. Capitol Police, D.C. Metropolitan Police, the National Guard and others — rioters on January 6th failed to achieve their goal of preventing the certification of a free and fair presidential election. The events of January 6th were horrific, and our bipartisan investigation identified many unacceptable, widespread breakdowns in security preparations and emergency response related to this attack," committee Chairman Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) said. "Our report offers critical recommendations to address these failures and strengthen security for the Capitol to prevent an attack of this nature from ever happening again."

The report found that federal law enforcement agencies, namely the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, failed to warn of potential violence on Jan. 6 despite known online calls for violence at the Capitol on open-sources like social media platforms. These agencies did not find such online posts to be credible. The divisions of USCP responsible for collecting intelligence on possible threats likewise "failed to fully incorporate this information into all of its internal assessments about January 6 and the Joint Session." Failure to share information across various law enforcement agencies was a serious problem that led police to be caught off guard when Trump's supporters formed a mob and breached the Capitol.

USCP also did not appear to develop a plan for how officers would be staffed during the Joint Session and front-line officers were not given "effective protective equipment or training" to deal with a crowd as big as the one that gathered in support of former President Donald Trump.

"These operational failures were exacerbated by leadership's failure to clearly communicate during the attack," the report said.

The National Guard's failure to respond to the riot was blamed on "opaque processes and a lack of emergency authority."

"As the attack unfolded, [the Department of Defense] required time to approve the request and gather, equip, and instruct its personnel on the mission, which resulted in additional delays," the report explained.

The Senate report recommended that the chief of USCP be given the ability to directly request assistance from the D.C. National Guard in emergency situations without waddling through bureaucratic red tape. It also calls for Congress to increase funding for Capitol Police training, equipment, and staff needs, among several other recommendations.

"This report lays out necessary reforms including passing a law to change Capitol Police Board procedures and improving intelligence sharing. I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to implement the recommendations in this report that are needed to protect the Capitol and, in turn, our nation," Rules Committee Chairwoman Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said.

"These recommendations are based on an extensive fact-finding effort that included interviews with key decision makers, firsthand accounts from law enforcement personnel, and the review of thousands of documents," ranking member Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said. "Our focus now should be on immediately implementing these recommendations. We owe it to the brave men and women who responded that day to do everything we can to prevent an attack like this from ever happening again, and in every instance ensure that the Capitol Police have the training and equipment that they need."

Upon release, the report was criticized by CNN and other media outlets for neglecting to directly blame then-President Trump for stoking violence.

The report does not provide additional insight into the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt by a USCP officer.

Leftist Bette Midler blasted for posting 'White Rage Has Always Gotten a Free Pass' political cartoon likening Tulsa race massacre to Jan. 6 Capitol riot



After her tweet last month threatening to expose allergic school children to peanuts unless they get vaccinated, entertainer Bette Midler continued her streak of venting outrageous, left-wing vitriol by posting Tuesday a "White Rage Has Always Gotten a Free Pass" political cartoon likening the 1921 Tulsa race massacre to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot:

https://t.co/KLRZIbBo1f

— bettemidler (@BetteMidler) 1622591827.0

To say Midler received some backlash for it is an understatement.

How did folks respond?

Being a left-wing high priestess, Midler certainly has her fans, and her tweet has received nearly 11,000 likes.

But others were decidedly disgusted by the cartoon's comparison and informed Midler of their sentiments in no uncertain terms — such as Denver radio talk show host Ross Kaminsky, who called Midler "remarkably moronic."

Others reacted similarly:

  • "There was no smoke over the Capitol on 1/6," one commenter told Midler. "That was your bong."
  • "You're are either deliberately lying, or you are just a brainwashed cult member...both are a terrible look," another commenter said.
  • "That's some convenient selective memory you've got there," one user pointed out to Midler.
  • "So everyone actually being arrested and investigated for what happened on Jan. 6th is just a free pass?" another user wondered. "How does that line up with all the protesters in Portland getting released without prosecution no matter how many times they try to burn down a building with people in it."
  • "Democrats have gotten a 'free pass' for starting the Klan. They incentivized, through welfare, the destruction of the black family. You only have to do a little research, Bette, to find this out," another commenter declared. "Are you just ignorant or pushing an agenda[?]"
  • "Disgusting," another user wrote. "You are trivializing the Tulsa tragedy & using it as a political prop. You demean those who suffered in that tragedy. The only homicide on Jan 6th (by dc med examiner) was an unarmed female vet killed by a capitol police officer. You use her death as a prop too. Vile."
  • "The cognitive deficiency that is revealed in this tweet is staggering," another commenter noted. "It is a wonder to me how people can navigate themselves through the world carrying the burden of such stupidity."

Anything else?

Midler is arguably as famous for her attacks on anything or anyone not decidedly pitching a tent in the left-wing camp as she is for "Wind Beneath My Wings." To wit:

Sister of pilot killed on Sept. 11 absolutely excoriates leftists who liken Jan. 6 Capitol riot to 9/11 terror attack that claimed nearly 3,000 lives



We know that supposed conservative writer George Will infamously declared that he wants to see the Jan. 6 Capitol riot "burned into the American mind as firmly as 9/11 because it was that scale of a shock to the system."

We know that Huffington Post senior White House correspondent S.V. Dáte defended Will by saying the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was "1000 percent worse" than 9/11.

We know that Democratic lawmakers desperately want to slow-cook the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and investigate it as if it was on the scale of 9/11 — a desire that will have to fester a bit longer after the push failed to get off the ground in the U.S. Senate a few days ago.

But amid all of their politicizing, virtue-signaling short memories and short-sightedness, Debra Burlingame — sister of a pilot killed on 9/11 — splashed some cold water on leftist faces in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, telling them they're out of their minds if they believe honest Americans buy their tall tale that the Jan. 6 riot was in the same universe as 9/11.

What did Burlingame have to say?

"The attempt to reconfigure the 'domestic terrorist' narrative to fit the horrifying story of Sept. 11 is profoundly disheartening," Burlingame wrote. "These two events are fundamentally different in nature, scope, and consequences. Mentioning them in the same breath not only diminishes the horror of what happened on 9/11; it tells a false story to the generation of Americans who are too young to remember that day nearly 20 years ago."

She explained that her brother, Charles "Chic" Burlingame, was the pilot of American Airlines flight 77 and "was murdered in his cockpit at age 51 in a 6½-minute struggle for control of the airplane" — and then gave some facts to the fact-deprived.

More from her op-ed:

Members of Congress might have had a frightening day on Jan. 6, but on 9/11 some 200 people in the World Trade Center towers chose to jump from 80 to 100 floors above the ground rather than be consumed by fire. A woman waiting at a lobby elevator bank was burned over 82% of her body when jet fuel from the first plane sent a ball of fire down the elevator shaft and into the lobby. She spent three months in a hospital burn unit and was permanently disfigured.

There are countless harrowing stories like this—of death, destruction and heartbreaking loss. More than 3,000 children lost parents. Eight young children were killed on the planes. Recovery personnel found 19,000 human remains scattered all over lower Manhattan from river to river, including on rooftops and window ledges. Victims' remains were still being recovered years later by utility workers and construction crews. Some families received so many notifications of remains that they couldn't take it any more and asked for them to stop. More than 1,100 families received nothing. Their loved ones went to work that morning and disappeared.

The attack brought down our nationwide aviation system, shut down the New York Stock Exchange for days, destroyed or rendered uninhabitable 16 acres of Lower Manhattan including underground subway and commuter train lines and destroyed a section of the Pentagon. Rebuilding at ground zero is still incomplete, and U.S. troops are still in Afghanistan.

Burlingame then delivered a knockout blow to the gaslighting left: "On Jan. 6, Congress resumed its session that evening."

"It is deeply offensive and sad that the brutal and harrowing memories of the worst terrorist attack in American history are being deployed by political partisans," she added. "They are using 9/11 not as an example of what the American people endured and overcame together, but explicitly to divide, to stoke hatred, and to further a political agenda aimed at stigmatizing the other party and marginalizing ordinary Americans from participating in the political process. That is the real threat to democracy."

Anything else?

If that isn't refreshing enough to digest, Burlingame offered that there have been "real terrorist attacks on the Capitol. But those must be forgotten because they came from the political left." With that, she reminded us of the Weather Underground bombings of the Senate, Pentagon, and State Department in a four-year span in the early 1970s.

Here's a quick look at the unforgettable images of the Pentagon after hijacked flight 77 slammed into its side on 9/11:

AS IT HAPPENED - The 9/11 Pentagon Attackyoutu.be

(H/T: Daily Caller)

LIVE NOW: The New War on Terror: Innocent Until Proven Conservative



The Left is gearing up to label anyone and everyone who doesn't bend the knee to their radical ideas as a threat to the nation, and they're using the January 6th Capitol riot to do so. That's when "innocent until proven conservative" started, and the Democrats' new 9/11-style January 6th Commission will solidify it.

Since the Capitol riot, the Biden administration has shown little transparency while arresting and intimidating hundreds and insisting that "right-wing terror" is on the rise. But is there ANY evidence to back up what the government is now doing to its own citizens?

On this week's Glenn TV special, Glenn Beck asks the questions that the corporate media won't and lays out why this may only be the beginning as private companies prepare to help the government spy on YOU. And Sen. Rand Paul joins to detail how Republicans in Congress are standing against the Democrats' new Jan. 6th Commission.

Watch the full episode below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.