Jan. 6 “Rioters” Were Not Rioters

Senate Minority (Democrat) Leader Upchuck Schumer on floor of Senate:

“Instead of focusing on helping working families, or lowering health care costs, or making life better for the American people, Donald Trump’s very first priority seems to be pardoning the January 6 rioters.”

The senator just committed defamation.

Commentators on the events of Jan. 6, 2021, often refer to a “riot.” In a practical sense, it may have been a riot. But legally, it was not. In order to prosecute someone for rioting, there must be evidence that police declared an “unlawful assembly” through a bull horn or other way that people could hear it. There is no evidence that police did so on Jan. 6.

Why didn’t they? If the object was to induce people to disperse and go home, the first thing I would do is repeatedly declare an unlawful assembly. On the other hand, if the object was to incite violence that could be blamed on Trump and Republicans, then I would remain silent, unlock and open the Capitol doors, and neglect to post signs that said “Keep Out” or barriers that said “No Entry.”

On the contrary, I would have Capitol Police usher in, and motion in, the crowd. Oh wait – that’s exactly what happened.

Before President George H.W. Bush could send troops to suppress the 1992 Los Angeles riot, he signed a proclamation declaring an unlawful assembly. All this goes back to the British Riot Act of 1714. If the government wants people to follow the rules, it must follow them itself. The rules must be crystal clear and apply equally to all. At least that’s the way things used to be.

The government proclaims an unlawful assembly, waits for the crowd to disperse, and only then starts arresting people. That is a riot. Those are rioters. That is the way it has been since 1714. That is where we get the expression: “The boss really read him the riot act.” The learned senator should know that.