Insurrectionists Disrupt And Shut Down Senate Business

Charge These Protesters With Sedition And Insurrection

In the wake of the tumultuous confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense, a stark parallel has emerged—one that compels us to scrutinize recent events through the same lens applied to the January 6th Capitol rioters, commonly referred to as J6ers. Today's disruption and halting of the confirmation proceedings by protesters raise serious questions about consistency in legal and political discourse. Those who interrupted Hegseth's hearing should be considered insurrectionists under the same criteria used to label J6ers.

Firstly, the protesters who disrupted Hegseth's confirmation hearing effectively halted a constitutionally mandated process. The Senate Armed Services Committee hearing is part of the Senate's "advise and consent" role under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By stopping the proceedings, these protesters arguably engaged in an act meant to overthrow government process, exactly what the J6ers were accused of, which was seen as an act of insurrection.

Under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1505, it's a crime to obstruct, impede, or interfere with any official proceeding of the United States. The interruption of a confirmation hearing is a violation of this statute, drawing direct parallels to the charges against some J6ers for obstructing an official proceeding.

The argument that J6ers aimed to influence the electoral process by force is exactly equivalent to what today's protesters did. Their actions were clearly designed to intimidate and influence Senators, swaying the confirmation vote through fear or disruption.

Critics of the J6ers claim their actions were meant to intimidate lawmakers into changing the election results. Similarly, today's protesters, by causing chaos in the hearing, aimed to influence the outcome of Hegseth's confirmation, either by forcing a postponement or by pressuring Senators to reconsider their support.

Moving to the charge of sedition, which has been levied against some involved in the Capitol riot, we see a direct parallel. Seditious conspiracy, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2384, involves conspiring to overthrow or oppose by force the authority of the U.S. or to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.

If the orchestrators of the protest had premeditated plans to disrupt the confirmation process, this could be construed as an attempt to hinder governmental function, akin to seditious conspiracy or a coup. This would require evidence of planning and organization, much like the investigations into the events of January 6, which would also show who put up the money and motivation behind these events.

The discourse around these events highlights a significant inconsistency in political reactions and legal applications. When J6ers stormed the Capitol, they were broadly condemned by political figures on the left as insurrectionists. There is no limit to the hyperbole that resulted from it to this day. However, the response to today's disruption seems to lack the same vigor, showing us a selective application of outrage and legal scrutiny based on political alignment.

This inconsistency shows Americans that the law and the government are there to operate against the people, not for. If actions taken today are not met with similar condemnation or legal action, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law and proves that many in our government are enemies of the United States.

Labeling those who disrupted Pete Hegseth's confirmation hearing as insurrectionists hinges on legal consistency and political impartiality. If the criteria used to judge the J6ers are to be applied universally, then these protesters, and possibly those who organized or supported the disruption, should face similar accusations. The argument here is not one of moral equivalence but of legal and procedural consistency.

The events of today serve as a litmus test for America's commitment to its own principles of justice and governance. Whether or not charges of sedition or insurrection are brought will be a telling moment for the nation, reflecting on how deeply embedded political biases influence the application of law. This scenario underscores the need for a reevaluation of how political actions are judged, ensuring that the standards of justice remain blind to political persuasion. Or America will have to face the reality that politics is now a weapon and the nation is doomed.