I don't like to have to repeat myself on topics, like the Trump impeachments. That also deals with the Jan. 6 insurrection. I have a somewhat nuanced take on things (see here and here). Make no mistake; I was appalled a group of partisan thugs invaded the Capitol, postponing ratification of the Presidential election. I felt that Trump's failure to respond to the incursion in a timely fashion was dereliction of duty and a violation of his Presidential oath. I supported his second impeachment and conviction.
However, consider the Constitution in Article 2 Section 8 specifically enumerates for the Congress "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions". The Capitol Police are not empowered to request the militia (National Guard); that must come from a 3-member board, two of them the Sergeant of Arms in each chamber of Congress which report to the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader respectively. Now I don't know if I specifically blogged about rumors about the Trump rally meeting early the same day of Congressional ratification of the election, but I was aware of the media buzz for days before Jan. 6 and we know it was serious enough for the National Guard and the FBI to offer assistance to the Capitol Police up to 3 days BEFORE Jan. 6.
We know Chief of Capitol Police Sund contacted the Sergeants of Arms before and on the day of Jan. 6. I don't know the specifics of who the Sergeants of Arms spoke with and what was discussed, but we know Sund was waiting on approval at the time the mob on Jan. 6 penetrated the Capitol. My experience with bureaucracies is that people like House Sergeant Irving rarely act on their own without the backing of their management. Is it possible that Speaker Pelosi and other House leaders didn't like the optics of the military on Capitol Hill, as Irving seemed to imply? I think it's possible, if not likely. Does that make them responsible for an insurrection? Of course not. And to be honest, I don't think most people could have predicted an unprecedented breach of the Capitol. At the same time, the flimsy barriers and outmanned police were no match for a large, enthusiastic mob. I do think a more robust perimeter and a substantial reinforced security staff, complemented by no-nonsense National Guard would have made an incursion like what happened extremely unlikely. . A weak perimeter and an undermanned police force are an accident waiting to happen.
I'm sure progressives will be unconvinced, arguing it's like blaming a woman's choice of wardrobe for the crime of rape. No, be clear: unlawful penetration of Capitol grounds is not justifiable regardless of the nature and extent of barriers to entry. It's very possible that some Trumpkin zealots would have tested reimbursed barriers or challenged the National Guard.
So what brought on this rant? I was listening to Sunday's ABC talk soup where some clueless progressive moderator incredulously asked Trump critic Kinzinger (R-IL) about Cheney replacement Congresswoman Stefanik's assessment about Pelosi's responsibility for Jan. 6. This was like the Twitter leftist troll arguing I had said much the same. Kinzinger sidestepped the moderator's question, obscurely referencing security profiles. I would have approved the National Guard/FBI offers to augment the Capitol Police security presence on Jan. 6. Would it have stopped what happened on Jan. 6? It's impossible to prove a counterfactual. But in my opinion, a weak target will be tested by motivated zealots.
It reminds me of the time when I lived in Cougar Place, graduate housing off the west perimeter of the UH campus, near student parking lots a few blocks away. One of my former coed students, a shapely, attractive, recently married woman, spotted me and asked me to escort her to her car, I obliged. Now did I make a difference to her safely driving home? Maybe not. I wasn't aware of coeds being attacked at or near parking. But she was being proactive in her personal safety, and it was a prudent request. We'll never know if Irving had been supportive of a more secure posture if the tragedy of January 6 could have been averted. But if I had been in the position, a different decision would have been made.
