 |
| US Capitol in Happier Times |
The world is full of speakers who have no idea what they’re talking about. Enough of that is enough. Speakers need to do their homework. And we have a hero! It’s not just that District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges defended the Capitol on January 6, which should be glory enough. He also defended truth by giving well-researched testimony.
One of four officers who testified at this week’s hearing about the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot, Hodges came prepared. Because he was prepared, he devastated one of the most common Republican talking points about that horrible day. Republicans, one recalls, like to say that the January 6 riot was no big deal.
For example, Republican congressional representative Andrew Clyde called the riot a “tourist visit.” During that “tourist visit,” hundreds of people broke into the Capitol, clubbed police with heavy implements, smashed up the interior, and fogged the area with bear spray. The whole time, they were screaming “hang Pelosi” and “stop the steal.” We all watched this on live television. A recent Monmouth University opinion poll found that 62% of Republican voters described the riot as, indeed a “riot.” Nevertheless, 47% of them thought it was “legitimate protest.” Still, for anyone to think of that awful day as anything less than a riot requires a person to unhook from reality. Other persons, however, have instead described the riot as “terrorism.” Does that overstate the case? Is “terrorism” too strong a word?” Officer Hodges thought that “terrorism” was the exact, correct term.
One of four officers who testified at this week’s hearing about the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot, Hodges came prepared. Because he was prepared, he devastated one of the most common Republican talking points about that horrible day. Republicans, one recalls, like to say that the January 6 riot was no big deal.
For example, Republican congressional representative Andrew Clyde called the riot a “tourist visit.” During that “tourist visit,” hundreds of people broke into the Capitol, clubbed police with heavy implements, smashed up the interior, and fogged the area with bear spray. The whole time, they were screaming “hang Pelosi” and “stop the steal.” We all watched this on live television. A recent Monmouth University opinion poll found that 62% of Republican voters described the riot as, indeed a “riot.” Nevertheless, 47% of them thought it was “legitimate protest.” Still, for anyone to think of that awful day as anything less than a riot requires a person to unhook from reality. Other persons, however, have instead described the riot as “terrorism.” Does that overstate the case? Is “terrorism” too strong a word?” Officer Hodges thought that “terrorism” was the exact, correct term.
Here’s how his testimony worked:
First, when asked whether January 6 was a “tourist visit,” Hodges quipped: “If that’s what American tourists are like, I can see why foreign countries don’t like American tourists.”
Second, Hodges preempted people who think that “terrorism” is too strong a term:
Yet, did Hodges’ irrefutable statement of evidence convince anyone? That’s hard to say. Probably not. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t make his point. It just means that some people refuse to be persuaded. Hodges did, however, put Republicans on the defensive. For example, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote today on the National Review's website that the January 6 riot was not terrorism. His astonishing argument is that January 6 may have met the legal definition of “terrorism,” but wasn’t, for some reason, as McCarthy put it, “real terrorism.” Pretty thin gruel. Much can be said for the way Hodges threw a seasoned lawyer like McCarthy back on his heels. Good work, Officer Hodges.
Mostly, however, conservatives ignored Hodges’ argument and defended themselves by launching personal attacks against the four officers. People resort to personal attacks when they have nothing else to say.
So, Hodges gave a lesson for speakers who find themselves in a tough spot. Hodges did his homework and reset the national debate about January 6 with one accurate, on-the-point quotation. He only needed a few seconds to shut down an entire Republican argument. We now all know that “terrorism” is not too strong a word. Hodges planned ahead. He expected to hear a question about terrorism. He did his homework. Sometimes the facts make a difference.
P.S. Here’s a link to the US Code, which Hodges did, indeed, quote correctly.
First, when asked whether January 6 was a “tourist visit,” Hodges quipped: “If that’s what American tourists are like, I can see why foreign countries don’t like American tourists.”
Second, Hodges preempted people who think that “terrorism” is too strong a term:
“I can see why someone would take issue with the title of 'terrorist.' It’s gained a lot of notoriety in our vocabulary in the past few decades, and we'd like to believe that no, that couldn’t happen here. No domestic terrorism. No homegrown threats.”Third, and this was the zinger, Hodges said, “But I came prepared.” He cited US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 11B, Section 2331. He then quoted verbatim the exact law that defines “domestic terrorism:”
“Activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of The United States or of any state and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”Boom! Hodges made his point. For it is obvious that the Capitol riot met that definition to the letter. The rioters indeed broke the law. They indeed tried to intimidate members of Congress. Members of Congress indeed had to flee the Capitol and delay counting the presidential votes.
Yet, did Hodges’ irrefutable statement of evidence convince anyone? That’s hard to say. Probably not. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t make his point. It just means that some people refuse to be persuaded. Hodges did, however, put Republicans on the defensive. For example, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote today on the National Review's website that the January 6 riot was not terrorism. His astonishing argument is that January 6 may have met the legal definition of “terrorism,” but wasn’t, for some reason, as McCarthy put it, “real terrorism.” Pretty thin gruel. Much can be said for the way Hodges threw a seasoned lawyer like McCarthy back on his heels. Good work, Officer Hodges.
Mostly, however, conservatives ignored Hodges’ argument and defended themselves by launching personal attacks against the four officers. People resort to personal attacks when they have nothing else to say.
So, Hodges gave a lesson for speakers who find themselves in a tough spot. Hodges did his homework and reset the national debate about January 6 with one accurate, on-the-point quotation. He only needed a few seconds to shut down an entire Republican argument. We now all know that “terrorism” is not too strong a word. Hodges planned ahead. He expected to hear a question about terrorism. He did his homework. Sometimes the facts make a difference.
____________________
____________________
Image: United States Capitol Visitor Center website
