Follow this authorRuth Marcus's opinions
Follow
Thursday ought to be another. At no small personal risk in an environment where judges and prosecutors have become targets of vitriol and violence, Lamberth let loose on those who would whitewash Jan. 6.
“The Court is accustomed to defendants who refuse to accept that they did anything wrong,” Lamberth said. “But in my 37 years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream. I have been dismayed to see distortions and outright falsehoods seep into the public consciousness. I have been shocked to watch some public figures try to rewrite history, claiming rioters behaved ‘in an orderly fashion’ like ordinary tourists, or martyrizing convicted January 6 defendants as ‘political prisoners’ or even, incredibly, ‘hostages.’ That is all preposterous. But the Court fears that such destructive, misguided rhetoric could presage further danger to our country.”
Advertisement
Lamberth didn’t name names, but the targets of his ire could not be clearer. Starting with former president Donald Trump, who has promised to pardon at least some of those charged in the insurrection. “Some people call them prisoners. I call them hostages,” Trump said in Iowa earlier this month, saying that those who breached the Capitol acted “patriotically and peacefully.”
Some in his party, which once stood for law and order, have distanced themselves from Trump’s repulsive remarks; others have dutifully echoed them, most notably Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), with an undisguised eye on the GOP vice-presidential nomination. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene described the jailed defendants as “political prisoners.” Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, in a Fox News segment that cherry-picked video provided by former House speaker Kevin McCarthy, concluded, “These were not insurrectionists. They were sightseers.”
Lamberth dissented and, given the moment we are in, it’s worth quoting his words at length:
Advertisement
“The Court cannot condone the shameless attempts by Mr. Little or anyone else to misinterpret or misrepresent what happened. It cannot condone the notion that those who broke the law on January 6 did nothing wrong, or that those duly convicted with all the safeguards of the United States Constitution, including a right to trial by jury in felony cases, are political prisoners or hostages.
“So let me set the record straight … this was not a protest that got out of hand. It was a riot; in many respects a coordinated riot. … ‘Protesters’ would have simply shared their views on the election — as did thousands that day who did not approach the Capitol. But those who breached and occupied the Capitol building and grounds halted the counting of the electoral college votes required by the 12th Amendment. The rioters interfered with a necessary step in the constitutional process, disrupted the lawful transfer of power, and thus jeopardized the American constitutional order. Although the rioters failed in their ultimate goal, their actions nonetheless resulted in the deaths of multiple people, injury to over 140 members of law enforcement, and lasting trauma for our entire nation. This was not patriotism; it was the antithesis of patriotism.”
The antithesis of patriotism, indeed. Along with the police at the Capitol that day, the judges of the federal bench here have been unsung patriots in this sad chapter. With more than 1,200 people charged in relation to the insurrection, with more of those defendants demanding jury trials than is customary, with the law unsettled and evolving, the district judges — active and those, such as Lamberth, on senior status — have been pressed into service, working harder than they bargained for in an effort to do their sworn duty of administrating justice.
Advertisement
Lamberth didn’t mention the workload, but you can get a sense of how galling it must be to have to hear this kind of nonsense. “For Mr. Little to style himself a political prisoner and to accuse the Court of infringing his rights is not only incorrect, it is offensive to the Court,” Lamberth said. “The public should understand that such notions are preposterous.”
The public should. Maybe Judge Lamberth’s prodding will help.
Share Comments
Popular opinions articles
HAND CURATED
- Opinion|Trump would drain the South Carolina wallets that Haley helped fillJanuary 24, 2024Opinion|Trump would drain the South Carolina wallets that Haley helped fillJanuary 24, 2024
- Opinion|Covid is back, and the U.S. is unprepared for the next bug. Here’s what to do.January 23, 2024Opinion|Covid is back, and the U.S. is unprepared for the next bug. Here’s what to do.January 23, 2024
- Opinion|Donald Trump is very confusedJanuary 23, 2024Opinion|Donald Trump is very confusedJanuary 23, 2024
View 3 more stories Sign up
Sentencing hearings are ordinarily about criminal defendants. What did they do? Have they demonstrated remorse? What factors in their background argue in favor of leniency or for the stiffest possible sentence?
The scene in U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth’s courtroom on Thursday was all that — but something more, and something even more important, as well. Because Lamberth, a senior judge who named to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, was not merely sentencing the defendant before him, James Little, one of the many Jan. 6, 2021, defendants whose cases have piled up before judges at the D.C. federal courthouse. He was also pronouncing judgment on the politicians and pundits who diminish the significance of Jan. 6 and instead laud its perpetrators as heroes.
Lamberth, a native Texan and Army veteran, is a man who has never been shy about calling the powerful to account. When Native Americans accused the Interior Department of mismanaging trust funds, an exasperated Lamberth held Bill Clinton’s Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, in contempt and then proceeded to do the same with President George W. Bush’s interior secretary, Gale Norton. (The federal appeals court ultimately ordered Lamberth removed from the case.)
After Russian President Vladimir Putin, balking at an order issued by Lamberth to turn over stolen Jewish artifacts, said he didn’t have to obey a “cowboy judge,” Lamberth — who’s been known to wear cowboy boots to legal events, described the epithet as “one of the highlights of my life.”
Thursday ought to be another. At no small personal risk in an environment where judges and prosecutors have become targets of vitriol and violence, Lamberth let loose on those who would whitewash Jan. 6.
“The Court is accustomed to defendants who refuse to accept that they did anything wrong,” Lamberth said. “But in my 37 years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream. I have been dismayed to see distortions and outright falsehoods seep into the public consciousness. I have been shocked to watch some public figures try to rewrite history, claiming rioters behaved ‘in an orderly fashion’ like ordinary tourists, or martyrizing convicted January 6 defendants as ‘political prisoners’ or even, incredibly, ‘hostages.’ That is all preposterous. But the Court fears that such destructive, misguided rhetoric could presage further danger to our country.”
Lamberth didn’t name names, but the targets of his ire could not be clearer. Starting with former president Donald Trump, who has promised to pardon at least some of those charged in the insurrection. “Some people call them prisoners. I call them hostages,” Trump said in Iowa earlier this month, saying that those who breached the Capitol acted “patriotically and peacefully.”
Some in his party, which once stood for law and order, have distanced themselves from Trump’s repulsive remarks; others have dutifully echoed them, most notably Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), with an undisguised eye on the GOP vice-presidential nomination. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene described the jailed defendants as “political prisoners.” Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, in a Fox News segment that cherry-picked video provided by former House speaker Kevin McCarthy, concluded, “These were not insurrectionists. They were sightseers.”
Lamberth dissented and, given the moment we are in, it’s worth quoting his words at length:
“The Court cannot condone the shameless attempts by Mr. Little or anyone else to misinterpret or misrepresent what happened. It cannot condone the notion that those who broke the law on January 6 did nothing wrong, or that those duly convicted with all the safeguards of the United States Constitution, including a right to trial by jury in felony cases, are political prisoners or hostages.
“So let me set the record straight … this was not a protest that got out of hand. It was a riot; in many respects a coordinated riot. … ‘Protesters’ would have simply shared their views on the election — as did thousands that day who did not approach the Capitol. But those who breached and occupied the Capitol building and grounds halted the counting of the electoral college votes required by the 12th Amendment. The rioters interfered with a necessary step in the constitutional process, disrupted the lawful transfer of power, and thus jeopardized the American constitutional order. Although the rioters failed in their ultimate goal, their actions nonetheless resulted in the deaths of multiple people, injury to over 140 members of law enforcement, and lasting trauma for our entire nation. This was not patriotism; it was the antithesis of patriotism.”
The antithesis of patriotism, indeed. Along with the police at the Capitol that day, the judges of the federal bench here have been unsung patriots in this sad chapter. With more than 1,200 people charged in relation to the insurrection, with more of those defendants demanding jury trials than is customary, with the law unsettled and evolving, the district judges — active and those, such as Lamberth, on senior status — have been pressed into service, working harder than they bargained for in an effort to do their sworn duty of administrating justice.
Lamberth didn’t mention the workload, but you can get a sense of how galling it must be to have to hear this kind of nonsense. “For Mr. Little to style himself a political prisoner and to accuse the Court of infringing his rights is not only incorrect, it is offensive to the Court,” Lamberth said. “The public should understand that such notions are preposterous.”
The public should. Maybe Judge Lamberth’s prodding will help.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
