Cornell’s Law School Legal Information Institute defines “domestic terrorism” as…“activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State: (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Policy and Guidelines state, “In accordance with U.S. counterterrorism policy, the FBI considers terrorists to be criminals. FBI efforts in countering terrorist threats are multifaceted. Information obtained through FBI investigations is analyzed and used to prevent terrorist activity and, whenever possible, to effect the arrest and prosecution of potential perpetrators.”
The invasion of Capitol Hill on 6th January this year clearly fits the requirements of domestic terrorism, and as such, the FBI is currently pursuing an investigation into the bizarre happenings of that day. The following statement appears on its Wanted web page:
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Washington Field Office is seeking the public’s assistance in identifying individuals who made unlawful entry into the United States Capitol Building and various other alleged criminal violations, such as destruction of property, assaulting law enforcement personnel, targeting members of the media for assault, and other unlawful conduct, on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.”
Just as bizarre as the invasion of Capitol Hill by a rampaging mob was the acquittal of Mr Donald J Trump last Saturday in his second impeachment trial by the US Senate by a tally of 57 to 43 votes, ten short of the required number to convict the 45th President of the United States of America on the charge of engaging in “High Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States.”
How, in the face of overwhelming evidence, could 43 state representatives vote against an impeachment? The facts included the continuous moaning about a “stolen election,” summoning his supporters to a rally on the day of the riot, whipping them into a frenzied state and then falsely promising to accompany them to Capitol Hill. Then there was his outright stubborn refusal to quell the mob, preferring to enjoy the show on television as they ran riot in the Capitol building, destroying and looting property on the very day the US Senate was trying to certify the results of the elections.
Were the 43 nays just to save face for the Republican Party and avoid the second impeachment of a Republican president? No, Mr Trump has succeeded in splitting the party. This vote was not a show of unity, in fact, it appears to have been a vote by 43 individuals trying to protect their own political futures. Why else on earth would they vote for an individual who, prior to his election, had promised “to drain the swamp” of these same senators that existed in Washington? No, these 43 senators, rather than uphold the honour of the oath they took to defend the constitution of the United States, succumbed to the element of fear.
That fear was presented in the form of Mr Donald Trump. They fear his reach and his power. In an interview on 31st March 2016, whilst running for president, he had observed, “Real power is — I don’t even want to use the word — fear.” In this instance, even with Mr Trump out of office, and a chance to sideline him from future political activities, 43 Republican senators lacked the moral courage to follow their conscience and impeach Trump.
The irony in the whole matter is that Trump is just as likely, to campaign against them should they seek re-election, just as he has promised to go after those seven Republican senators who voted in favour of impeachment: Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
The 43 naysayers have witnessed up close and personal, the path of disunity sown by Mr Donald Trump during his time in the Oval Office. They have listened to, or later heard many of the thousands of lies he has spouted, yet the element of fear, the currency of all terrorists, was just too much.
The founding fathers of the United States, the signatories of the US Constitution must be spinning in their graves at the lack of integrity shown by these senators in dealing with a simple straightforward matter critical to the maintenance of American democracy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s frivolous argument that Mr Trump is now a private citizen and cannot be impeached while acknowledging after the vote, with a forked tongue, that, “There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for promoting the events of January 6,” holds no water.
President Trump has escaped the reach of the Senate. Will the FBI be charging him with domestic terrorism? Time, not the Republicans, will answer that question.
