Happy Civil Rights Day!

On my long-neglected blog I recommended replacing Martin Luther King Day with Civil Rights Day. Here’s the case I made.


For years I’d heard news stories about debates over whether or not to establish an official Martin Luther King holiday, and never did anyone report the arguments against. I always suspected that one was that we had way too many day-off-of-work holidays as it was. Having one three weeks after Christmas does seem a bit superfluous. MLK Day would be only the third national holiday named after a person, the others being Christmas and Columbus Day, commemorating the chief catalyst for Western culture and the chief catalyst for extending Western culture to the Americas. (In the case of the latter, make that Western cultures; English and Iberian influences were vastly different.) Some, I imagine, feel that only those rare individuals who have had such a radical impact should have holidays named for them. Dr. King isn’t in that league; the only Americans who are are the Founders; their holiday is July 4.

Here’s my argument against making [the third Monday of January] an official holiday: it’s not fair to everyone else involved in the civil rights movement. Independence Day isn’t just about one guy. We have a holiday for all those who made the Declaration of Independence happen. We should have a federal holiday called Civil Rights Day. It would be like Memorial Day, honoring leaders of past civil rights struggles instead of soldiers of past wars.

People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump

On May 30, 2024, Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsified business records that allegedly abetted crime(s) unstated in the March 30, 2023 indictment. The jury was instructed to choose between three candidates for the other crime; their choices were not disclosed in the conviction. During the course of the trial, legal experts have struggled to deduce the nature of the underlying crime. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg played his cards close to the vest; as CNN analyst and Bragg’s former colleague Elie Honig stated:

Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)

Pieces to this puzzle are scattered about the Internet address in bits and pieces. This is my attempt to pull those sources together to adequately outline the main issues of the case.

Read more

Investigations To-Do List

Regarding my previous post, I want J6 investigations to determine the numbers that engaged in the following:

  1. Attacked the defensive perimeter between the Capitol grounds and the area of the permitted Capitol protest
  2. Of those cited above, those who did and did not enter the Capitol grounds, and those who did and did not enter the Capitol building
  3. Engaged in assault to gain access to the Capitol building itself, or to areas within
  4. Other assaults by civilians
  5. Engaged in vandalism to gain access to the Capitol building or to areas within
  6. Other vandalism
  7. Entered the Capitol through unattended doorway (e.g. Chansley and his entourage)
  8. Entered the capitol through attended doorway with permission
  9. Accessed the Capitol grounds by climbing the west wall
  10. Of those cited above, those who did and did not enter the Capitol building (my own impression is that most were content to stay outside)
  11. Attempted to approach lawmakers while inside Capitol
  12. Did not attempt to approach lawmakers while inside Capitol
  13. All convictions of nonviolent persons who were never on Capitol grounds
  14. Capitol defenders lobbing tear gas canisters into the area of the permitted Capitol protest
  15. Capitol defenders lobbing tear gas elsewhere
  16. Assaults by non-civilians not involving tear gas

And now, on to other investigations the Trump administration or other parties should undertake.

Read more

Thoughts on J6 Pardons and Investigations

I am in favor of a pardon for J6 protesters, but not all of them. Which ones? Those who posed no threat. Those not convicted or charged with assault or other violent offenses (with one possible exception – see next paragraph), or for inciting violent behavior (like John Earle Sullivan). Ray Epps still hasn’t been thoroughly investigated, so he should not receive a pardon.

The case of Rachel Powell must be reviewed carefully. She claims she broke a window to flee a dangerous situation created by an attack by Capitol defenders that had protesters pressed in a confined area. If there is a strong case for her self-defense argument, pardon her.

The pardon decision must reflect zero tolerance of violence other than justifiable self-defense. The pardon announcement must call attention to prosecutorial abuse, excessively lengthy pretrial detention, and pretrial prison conditions.

Now, on to J6 investigations. Here’s my not-necessarily-comprehensive to-do list.

A highly detailed sequence of events. If military history buffs can put together detailed videos of major battles pinpointing the positions of individual units at specific times, the same can be accomplished here. I want a series of maps in print or video format that show time and location of every single violent incident, whether fomented by the public- or private-sector, and other incidents of note (e.g. pipe bomb discoveries, Senate recess, the moment Capitol security started allowing entry into the building, Trump’s “go home” tweet, Jacob Chansley announcing said tweet), and that also show the location of key persons of interest at those times. This exercise should be valuable to various investigations, and will give the public a better sense of when and where rioting and other violence occurred. I suspect that many people imagine four solid hours of rioting, far more violence than actually occurred. I’m also curious to know how many people who heard the end of Trump’s speech entered the building. Given the walking distance, they would not have arrived yet when windows were being bashed in.

A request for private citizens to submit videos that have not yet been submitted. There may still be some videos out there that haven’t been tuned in out of fear of being railroaded by Biden’s DoJ.

The pipe bombs. Who planted them, and were they subjected to forensic analysis after the Feds exploded the devices? Since they were fitted with one-hour kitchen timers and placed many hours prior to discovery, the bombs either had a different trigger mechanism that wasn’t visible, or no trigger mechanism at all. The latter alternative calls into question whether the bombs even had explosives. They could have been filled with Clairol for all we know.

The use of tear gas and its possible role in inciting violence. Some tear gas rounds were fired deep into the peaceable section of the crowd, as witnessed by J. Michael Waller and documented in this video (first round visible at 1:02).

The decision to allow entry into the building. Who authorized it? At which entrances was entry allowed? I am vaguely aware of a claim that the rioting was mostly on one side of the building and allowed entry was on the other. I’d like some confirmation on that.

The shooting death of Ashli Babbitt.

The death of Rosanne Boyland.

The origins of the hoax that Brian Sicknick was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher.

The gallows prop. Who built it, and who decided it should not be torn down once it was up? People need to be fired over this.

All other conduct of Capitol defenders.

Prison conditions for J6 protesters in pretrial detention. Inspection teams should be ready to descend on the prison(s) two seconds after Trump takes the oath of office.

Prosecution of J6 defendants. One special concern is the decision to charge about 250 J6 defendants under an evidence tampering provision under Sarbanes-Oxley. How was this decision made? Did anyone in the loop doubt that the statute was genuinely relevant to those cases? Those convictions have since been shot down by SCOTUS. One has to imagine how someone could get the idea that a law concerned with addressing accounting shenanigans could be applied to protesters.

The J6 committee and Jack Smith. Obligatory mention. One issue I’d like to see settled: since the full committee never met, did it have subpoena authority? If not, the cases of those convicted of defying subpoenas should be appealed, not pardoned.