Tough sentences for Jan. 6 rioters should freak Donald Trump out
Scott Kevin Fairlamb on Wednesday became the recipient of the toughest sentence yet administered for the crimes committed during the Jan. 6 insurrection. Fairlamb, who pleaded guilty to charges against him, will serve 41 months in prison.
The Washington Post recounts: “Scott Kevin Fairlamb, 44, was captured on various videos screaming profanely in support of the pro-Trump insurrection, climbing on the inauguration scaffolding outside the Capitol, and then pushing an officer into a group of people and punching the officer’s face shield, as well as briefly entering and exiting the Capitol, according to court filings and footage played in court.”
His sentence certainly stands out from those previously handed down. The Post reports: “Of the 126 people who have pleaded guilty so far, only 16 have admitted to felonies, and Fairlamb is the third felon to be sentenced. The other two felons, who were not accused of violence against the police, received sentences of eight and 14 months.”
That punishment could have serious repercussions on various fronts, including for leadership at the Justice Department. The prosecutor at the sentencing hearing warned, “It is just critical that the court’s sentence convey to future rioters that there will be very, very serious consequences for those who intend to obstruct the rule of law and obstruct democracy, particularly through assaults on law enforcement.”
For that reason, it is inconceivable that the Justice Department would not follow the money and organizational muscle upward, and hold those at the top of the traitorous scheme accountable. Certainly, Attorney General Merrick Garland cannot deny that it is “critical” for the planners, instigators and funders of future riots that they face “very serious consequences” too.
As more criminal defendants on the lowest rung of the insurrection are sentenced, the harder it will be to exempt those who were not physically present but whose actions may have helped instigate the violent uprising. The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack is acting precisely as a law enforcement agency would in investigating a sprawling conspiracy to commit a crime (both violent crimes committed that day, and the ultimate aim to steal the presidential election). It is casting a wide net, which likely means trouble for the former president and his fellow schemers.
By definition, every member of a conspiracy is responsible for the crimes of others that were reasonably foreseeable. Former president Donald Trump and his White House cronies need not have had contact with, or even know the identities of, specific defendants to face legal risks; so long as they took action to further the violent uprising as a last resort to halting Congress from carrying out its certification of electoral college votes, they could be in jeopardy. Trump’s refusal to take action during the hours-long Capitol siege lends credence to the argument that he had expected, or even welcomed, the riot after his “Stop the Steal” rally and months of fomenting the “big lie” of a stolen election.
With the daily revelations from investigative journalists and authors about the plot to retain power, the growing list of convictions of the lowest-level criminals and the trail of subpoenas, the effort to place Trump at the center of an illegal scheme is coming into focus. This includes a number of meetings and calls between Trump and cronies at the Justice Department (some documented contemporaneously), as well as the existence of a “command center” at the Willard Hotel where Trump’s team worked to overturn the election. Collectively, these revelations make up a treasure trove of evidence that prosecutors rarely have to pursue conspiracy cases.
Critics of the Justice Department underestimate the methodical approach needed to identify witnesses, apply pressure to co-conspirators to cooperate and weave eyewitness testimony together with written evidence. As the Justice Department goes after the small fry, it can wait for the evidentiary nuggets uncovered by the House. That takes time — and makes it increasingly hard not to follow the facts all the way to the ex-commander in chief.