Category: Uncategorized

In the hours and days following the January 6 attack on Congress, several Republicans, including Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) claimed that the people who attacked the Capitol were not Trump supporters, but Antifa instigators. Since then, many of these same people have claimed that the FBI was imbedded with the crowd that gathered that day and encouraged unwitting Trump supporters to enter the Capitol building.

Despite the fact that these claims have been debunked, the unfounded claims have continued. More recently, MAGA Republicans–including FPOTUS Trump–has taken to calling those convicted of violent crimes on January 6–including those that pled guilty–“hostages” or “political prisoners.”

Royce Lambreth, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, recently presided over the trial of Taylor James Johnatakis, a 40-year old defendant who traveled from Kingston, WA to participate in the January 6 insurrection of the Capitol. Johnatakis contended that he did nothing illegal on January 6, and was simply exercising his First Amendment rights. His family and friends submitted letters of support detailing the good works Johnatakis has committed during his life and claiming that Johnatakis did nothing wrong on January 6.

Johnatakis was charged with seven crimes, including three felonies. One of those felonies was assaulting a law enforcement officer. He was convicted on all counts, and on April 2, 2024, Judge Lambreth was assigned the task of sentencing Johnatakis. Lambreth submitted Notes for Sentencing, explaining why he chose the sentence he chose. As you read, consider Judge Lambreth’s words and determine for yourself if Johnatakis or the other individuals in prison for their actions on January 6 are hostages and political prisoners, or if they are rightly being punished by our justice system for breaking the law.

---

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v

TAYLOR JAMES JOHNATAKIS
Defendant

 

NOTES FOR SENTENCING

Today, the Court sentenced Taylor James Johnatakis. The Court ordered that Mr. Johnatakis be committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a term of 87 months. The following are the notes that the Court used when delivering portions of its oral sentencing.

***

The Court has received over twenty letters from friends and family of Mr. Johnatakis. Those letters speak to Mr. Johnatakis’s good works, good nature, and good character. Most ask for the Court to release him right away. Many say he did nothing criminal on January 6 and is no danger to society. I appreciate that the defendant has, with exceptions, been courteous and respectful to the Court, and I harbor no personal animosity toward him. The Court agrees that Mr. Johnatakis, like many January 6 defendants, is not an inherently bad person. That is what makes these cases hard. As the Court has said many times, I take no great pleasure in locking up defendants who led good lives until their actions on January 6, 2021. After thirty-seven years on the bench, the Court knows how disruptive a prison sentence can be for defendants and their families. Nevertheless, the Court cannot let people entirely off the hook for their actions that day. In light of the defendant’s supportive letters, the Court would like to take a moment to explain what it is trying to accomplish when it sentences a defendant such as Mr. Johnatakis for events arising out of the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

A society in which everyone does what is right by his own lights, where adherence to the law is optional, would be a society of vigilantism, lawlessness, and anarchy. As my late friend Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote, “[i]t is the proud boast of our democracy that we have ‘a government of laws and not of men.’” Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 697 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). A person dissatisfied with the government or the law has various non-violent ways to express his or her views. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech. It also enshrines “the right of the people peaceably”—let me repeat, peaceably—“to assemble.” And history has shown there is some role for the civil disobedience of Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, Jr., in which a citizen engages in principled and peaceful—let me repeat, peaceful—disobedience of the law in order to protest a perceived injustice. In that situation, the person acknowledges they have broken the law and accepts the legal consequences that follow.

But what the jury found Mr. Johnatakis to have done on January 6 was neither First Amendment-protected activity nor civil disobedience. As the Court has said before, “the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to enter a restricted area or to engage in riotous activity in the Capitol.” See United States v. Little (Little Notes for Resentencing), No. 1:21-cr-315 (RCL), 2024 WL 386718 (D.D.C. Jan. 25, 2024). It obviously does not give anyone the right to assault the police. Nor was the January 6 riot an act of civil disobedience, because it was violent, not peaceful; opportunistic, not principled; coercive, not persuasive; and selfish, not patriotic.

The portrayal of Mr. Johnatakis as either a peaceful protestor or someone simply swept up by the crowd does not match the reality established at trial. One thing that strikes me about the letters is that few of the authors seem to know what he actually did. One person even wrote me that they know he has never done anything violent and never would. Perhaps Mr. Johnatakis has contributed to this misperception, because although he repeatedly expressed his “heartfelt and sincere” regrets at trial, see, e.g., Nov. 20, 2023 Trial Tr. at 71, ECF No. 256, since his conviction he has denied his conduct and downplayed the January 6 riot itself. But the Court knows the facts of this case because it has heard from the witnesses and examined the evidence, including police body camera footage and videos filmed by Mr. Johnatakis himself. The Court would therefore like to set the record straight about what Mr. Johnatakis did that day.

In any angry mob, there are leaders and there are followers. Mr. Johnatakis was a leader. He knew what he was doing that day. On January 5, he posted on social media: “[B]urn the city down. What the British did to DC will be nothing . . .” Trial Exhibit 904G. The next day, while marching to the Capitol, he recorded and posted a video in which he proclaimed “we’re walking over to the Capitol right now, and I don’t know, maybe we’ll break down the doors.” Presentence Report (PSR) ¶ 26, ECF No. 266. Once he got to the restricted grounds of the Capitol, he made his way to the vanguard of the crowd, all the while yelling into the megaphone he had brought with him. PSR ¶¶ 27–29. As Metropolitan Police Department Captain David Augustine testified at trial, rioters eventually overwhelmed the police line and forced the officers to retreat up the Capitol’s Southwest stairs, under the scaffolding created for the inauguration. The video played at trial shows that Mr. Johnatakis led the charge up the stairs. He soon reached a fallback line of barricades manned by police in order to protect the Capitol building itself and the Members of Congress, staff, and others inside. See PSR ¶¶ 29–31. When he got there, he waved on more people toward the police line, and through his megaphone barked commands to “pack it in!” PSR ¶ 32. So, although one of the letters claims that Mr. Johnatakis “set out with good intentions and ended up in a crowd of orchestrated out of control protestors,” in fact it was Mr. Johnatakis himself who organized protestors to violence that day.

Once enough rioters had heeded his calls and swarmed against the police line, Mr. Johnatakis deployed his megaphone to give encouragement and step-by-step instructions for overpowering the police. PSR ¶ 33. As he announced “one, two, three, GO!” he and his fellow rioters—including his co-defendants Craig Bingert and Isaac Sturgeon—picked up the metal barricades and slammed them into the police officers. PSR ¶ 33. Mr. Johnatakis and the others then raised the barriers higher until they were about head-level with the officers, so that the mob could brawl with the officers without the barriers getting in the way. PSR ¶ 33. In the resulting melee, Mr. Johnatakis seized MPD Officer Juan Gonzalez by the arm. PSR ¶ 33. Officer Gonzalez testified at trial that with Mr. Johnatakis holding his arm in place, he was unable to hold back the line of rioters or protect himself. Nov. 20, 2023 Trial Tr. at 67. By effectively disarming Officer Gonzalez, Mr. Johnatakis made him vulnerable to serious injury, or worse. Indeed, Officer Gonzalez said that during the assault, he felt like he had suffered a “serious injury” and perhaps even broken his leg. Nov. 20, 2023 Trial Tr. at 58. Another officer who was standing alongside this officer, Officer Marc D’Avignon, thought he was going to die. Nov. 20, 2023 Trial Tr. at 51.

As Mr. Johnatakis walked away from the Capitol, he recorded several videos in which he expressed his satisfaction with what had occurred and pride in the role he had played. He crowed that “for the first time since 1817 that Capitol was stormed” and that members of Congress were forced to evacuate. PSR ¶ 37. He boasted that the crowd was so “irate” that “we probably would have murdered a few of” the Members of Congress “had we seen exactly who they were.” PSR ¶ 37. He summed up his conduct: “I was on the front line. I was on the gate. I organized a push up to the Capitol because I felt like that is exactly what we needed.” PSR ¶ 37. He also exclaimed it was “1776 again,” as if he were fighting for freedom against a foreign oppressor, rather than battling his own elected, representative government. PSR ¶ 36.

As the Court has said before, “[o]n January 6, 2021, a mob of people invaded and occupied the United States Capitol, using force to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power mandated by the Constitution and our republican heritage.” Little Notes for Resentencing, 2024 WL 386718, at *3. There can be no room in our country for this sort of political violence. The Framers designed our constitutional system so that the people govern through their representatives, according to law. Decisions are the result of elections, debates, and compromise. The people, through their representatives, decide. By contrast, those who think political ends justify violent means seek to replace persuasion with intimidation, the rule of law with “might makes right.” Violence risks begetting a vicious cycle that could threaten cherished conventions and imperil our very institutions of government. In that sense, political violence rots republics. Therefore, January 6 must not become a precedent for further violence against political opponents or governmental institutions. This is not normal. This cannot become normal. We as a community, we as a society, we as a country cannot condone the normalization of the January 6 Capitol riot.

This is the context in which the Court must sentence those convicted for their actions on January 6. To be sure, many people that day exercised their right to protest peacefully, without violating any laws. But others have pleaded guilty to crimes or been convicted after a bench or jury trial. When it comes to sentencing these defendants, a court must consider the same factors as in any other sentencing, including “the need for the sentence imposed” “(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;” “(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;” and “(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). When sentencing a person convicted for January 6 offenses, the Court aims to discourage these defendants from future violence, dissuade others from taking inspiration from the Capitol riot, and express the community’s moral disapproval of this conduct. The Court must bear these considerations in mind, even as it is sensitive to the fact that every prison sentence leaves a void in the lives of the defendant’s friends and family.

The Court would also like to address Mr. Johnatakis’s conduct since the jury convicted him. At trial, he repeatedly expressed contrition to the Court and the jury. But he changes his story depending on his audience. Since conviction, he has frequently offered public commentary about his actions and January 6, including by issuing letters and giving speeches and podcast interviews from jail. The D.C Jail and United States Marshals Service have reported to me that to give interviews, he purposefully bypassed the D.C. Jail’s safeguards. When the jail blocked him from calling into a podcast directly, rather than consult the jail’s authorities to see if such an interview would be permitted, he devised a workaround to reach the podcast host. It has come to the attention of the Court that this particular podcast episode was ultimately published on YouTube on January 9, 2024. See Quite Frankly, “D.C. Gulag & NYC Tunnels” ft. Taylor James Johnatakis 1/9/24, YouTube (Jan. 9 2024), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXKBKeJBQas&t=1756s [https://perma.cc/NP55-YWZT]. Mr. Johnatakis’s message was this: “[W]e did nothing. We touched a gate. We got pepper sprayed, we moved back. That was it.” He also said that “[e]verything about January 6 is just overblown.” Similarly, in a December 12, 2023 letter, he explained his actions by saying: “I chose to get rowdy, but not violent, at the time I felt it was a right born of necessity.” See Gov. Sentencing Mem. 16, ECF No. 270. These comments suggest that Mr. Johnatakis sought to mislead the Court and the jury when he repeatedly expressed his contrition for his actions on January 6, for instance by asking witnesses to “please accept my sincere apology for my role in the events of that day.” See, e.g., 11/20/23 Trial Tr. at 30; see also at 51, 71, 127. Moreover, these remarks leave no doubt that Mr. Johnatakis, unlike many January 6 defendants sentenced by the Court, does not accept responsibility for his actions and does not show true remorse. Indeed, he did not do so today.

And although his speech itself is protected, a person who violates the rules of his confinement through subterfuge nevertheless does not demonstrate that the court should depart from the guidelines for these offenses, or even give him a low end of the guidelines. This subterfuge recalls his brazen attempts to abuse the trial process by making improper comments to the jury. Before the trial began, the Court went to great pains to remind Mr. Johnatakis that in exercising his Constitutional right to self-representation, he would be expected to adhere to “the same rules, the same procedure and the same substantive law as any other defendant.” Nov. 17, 2023 Trial Tr. at 37, ECF No. 252. The Court specifically advised him that if he was “unsure whether a particular argument is appropriate for the jury,” he should either consult with his standby counsel or speak to me outside earshot of the jury. Nov. 17, 2023 Trial Tr. at 39. In response, Mr. Johnatakis said that he “accepted” the Court’s statement. Nov. 17, 2023 Trial Tr. at 40. For most of the trial, Mr. Johnatakis was courteous and respectful to the Court. But he as soon as he began his closing arguments, he started telling the jury facts not in the record. He was effectively trying to testify without being subject to cross-examination. Then, he tried to argue for jury nullification. See Nov. 20, 2023 Trial Tr. at 159–161. After the Court shut down both attempts, it required Mr. Johnatakis to read to the Court what he planned to say next to the jury. Yet as soon as the Court approved his remarks, he began making further improper remarks that he had not cleared with the Court. See Nov. 20, 2023 Trial Tr. at 163–65. His efforts to subvert the judicial process through various unorthodox means, combined with his lack of remorse, make me worry that if given the chance he will again engage in violent, criminal activity.

Finally, the court would like to address the insights into Mr. Johnatakis’s character offered by his letters of support. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), one factor the court considers in every sentencing is the ‘history and characteristics of the defendant.’ The Court is grateful that so many people took the time to submit thoughtful letters in support of the defendant. The court respects their views of Mr. Johnatakis. I read every letter and took into account their comments about the good qualities he has exhibited over a lifetime. Yet in our system of justice, we punish people not for their overall character, but for their actions. Living an otherwise-blameless life does not grant anyone a free pass. Mr. Johnatakis is not here today because of who he is, but to be accountable for what he did. Like the jury, I listened to the witnesses and examined the evidence of his actions on January 6. Having done so, the court concludes that, unfortunately for him, his friends, his family, and our society, it seems Mr. Johnatakis left his good qualities at home when he went to the Capitol on January 6. The actions of Mr. Johnatakis are inexcusable, and his choices have consequences. The Court takes no pleasure in sending any defendant to prison, but it will not shirk its solemn duty to enforce law and order.

So that Mr. Johnatakis friends and family can understand the sentence imposed today, the Court will order the Clerk of Court to send a copy of these remarks to each person who submitted a letter on behalf of Mr. Johnatakis. I am pleased that some of his family can be here today to hear my words. I will decline to vary or depart upwards from the sentencing guidelines, and I will impose a guidelines sentence in this case.

Dated: 4/2/24

Signed: Royce C. Lambreth, United States District Court

In 1864, the United States was in the midst of a Civil War. The Union was at risk of being dissolved, and the outcome of the war was anything but certain.

Out west, Arizona was still a territory. It would not become a state for another forty-eight years. The Arizona Territory established a government consisting of a territory governor, a House of Representatives (made up of eighteen members) and the upper house (I’m not sure if it was then referred to as a “senate”–made up of nine members). As would be expected for the time, all positions were held by white males.

In Arizona, as in the rest of the nation, woman were not permitted to vote in state or federal elections. In fact, it would be another fifty-five years before the 19th Amendment to the Constitution would be passed, giving women the right to vote. It was a very different time.

The legislature in the Arizona Territory worked very differently than how legislatures work today. They were in session for less than two months to establish new laws for the entire territory. In addition, the legislature was in charge of granting divorces, which took up part of their time in session

Luckily for the members of the Arizona Territory legislature, Judge William T. Hall came prepared. He had written up the vast majority of the territory laws, and all the legislature had to do was vote on the proposals he had prepared.

Leading the House of Representatives was their Speaker, William Claude Jones. Jones was the man who gave Arizona its name. According to his biographer, L. Boyd Finch, he was a politician, poet, fabulist, and “pursuer of nubile females.”

Jones’ life was a combination of mystery and accomplishment. For instance, Jones listed five different places as his place of birth, including the story that he was born to a US consul in Catalonia, Spain. That appears to have been a lie. It’s much more likely that he was born near Mobile, Alabama. Jones claimed to have been a lieutenant during the Second Seminole War, but that claim also was likely untrue.

What we do know is that Jones was part of the territorial governments of Missouri and Arizona, was United States Attorney for the New Mexico Territory, was a member of the Hawaiian Privy Council, and was elected to the Missouri State Senate. We also know that Jones was married five different times during the course of his life. This is what we know about his wives:

• He married his first wife in Missouri and had three children with her. He abandoned them all when he moved west to the New Mexico Territory.
• He abducted his second wife from Mexico and brought her back to the New Mexico Territory when he was serving as US Attorney. She was twelve years old. When word got back to Washington, DC about what he had done, Jones resigned rather than be fired by President Buchanan, abandoning his young bride and fleeing to the Arizona Territory.
• In 1864, at the age of forty-nine, Jones married a fifteen year old girl. A year later he abandoned her and moved to Hawaii.
• His fourth wife was a fifteen-year-old Hawaiian native. He had four children with her. She died at the age of twenty-eight from smallpox, leaving Jones a widower.
• It’s unclear how old his fifth wife was when they married.  However, we do know that the marriage only lasted two years. His wife filed for divorce, claiming multiple instances of adultery by Jones

By today’s standards, Jones was certainly a pedophile. However, by the standards of 1864 Arizona, where Jones successfully pushed legislation to set the age of consent to sexual intercourse for females at ten years of age, his marriages were copesetic with the law.

Another law Jones ushered through the Arizona Territory Legislature was a bill outlawing abortion, except in cases where the health of the mother was at risk. But the law isn’t exactly what you might think when you hear about abortion restrictions, In fact, the law passed in 1864 was actually designed to protect women, not control them.

At the time, it was not uncommon for men to injure or kill women in order to do away with an unwanted pregnancy. So, the legislature passed a law designed to protect women from the bad behavior of men. One such law made it illegal for a man to use poison or instruments to induce a pregnant woman to miscarry.

In her “Letters from an American” column, Boston College History Professor Heather Cox Richardson writes:

“In that context, the context of punishing those who secretly administer poison to kill someone, it says that anyone who uses poison or instruments “with the intention to procure the miscarriage of any woman then being with child” would face two to five years in jail, “Provided, that no physician shall be affected by the last clause of this section, who in the discharge of his professional duties deems it necessary to produce the miscarriage of any woman in order to save her life.” 

In other words, the law that the Arizona Supreme Court recently decided was still enforceable as a ban on abortion, was originally passed to protect women from harm caused by men, not to control a woman’s reproductive rights. Regardless, the Arizona Supreme Court said that the Arizona government can use it to restrict the reproductive rights of women throughout the state.

We can argue about who is right in the abortion debate: the pro-life or the pro-choice crowd. That’s a conversation for another day. But no matter which side of the debate you are on, you should be opposed to using these antiquated laws for purposes they were never intended to address. When we start ignoring the purpose of laws and twist them to fit situations they were never intended for, we begin to lose the protections of the laws for which our legal system was designed. Without those protections, we devolve into an authoritarian state, following the arbitrary rule of man rather than the more certain rule of law. That’s not something any of us should want.

Over the past few days, I have heard some of the weirdest, most insane theories and ideas coming from people in positions of authority. For instance, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) opined that the solar eclipse is God’s way of communicating with us. In a tweet (Are they still called tweets?) on X (formerly Twitter), MTG wrote:

“God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent.
Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come.
I pray that our country listens.”

X, to their credit, added this community note to her post:

“Monday’s eclipse was predicted hundreds of years ago, it will not have been caused by contemporary actions.  Earthquakes occur naturally and happen (on average) more than 30 times a day across the world, although many are too subtle to feel.”

MTG then doubled down when she received pushback to her post. In a subsequent tweet, she said:

“Many have mocked and scoffed at this post and even put community notes.

Jesus talked about that in Luke 12:54-56.*

Yes eclipses are predictable and earthquakes happen and we know when comets are passing by, however God created all of these things and uses them to be signs for those of us who believe.”

I don’t mean to besmirch MTG’s religious beliefs, but I would point out that if a prehistoric caveman or members of the Inca Empire had said these same things, we would shake our collective heads at their ignorance. Bless her heart.

Perhaps we should not be surprised by MTG’s posts. Afterall, at various times she has contended that the 9/11 terrorist attack was a hoax, wildfires in California were caused by Jewish space lasers, the school shooting in Parkland, FL was a red flag operation, the 2020 election was stolen, the January 6 insurrection was caused by Antifa and the FBI, and many more wild and wacky conspiracy theories. But MTG is not alone.

Over the weekend, Brian Perras, a Republican candidate for Congress in Florida, accused President Biden of molesting children and claimed that Ukraine was behind the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. Not to be outdone, Donald Trump himself accused Biden of being high on cocaine during the State of the Union Address, said inflation is currently 50%, and claimed that countries around the world are emptying their prisons and sending the convicts to the United States..

I could give many more examples, but I think you get the point. There is a segment of the population that is Republican, is part of the MAGA movement, and is utterly disconnected from reality. These people routinely market in misinformation and disinformation, primarily for political purposes. They use mis/disinformation to stoke the culture wars, keep their supporters angry and ignorant, and to create a state of chaos in the country that they then complain about and claim only they can fix.

It’s easy to point out these crazy beliefs on the right. They are so numerous, obvious, and ridiculous. But there are also beliefs on the left that are disconnected from reality. They are not as obvious, but they still exist.

For instance, consider the belief that the country and our democracy is going to be saved from Donald Trump’s authoritarian movement by the justice system. It sounds nice. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the judiciary stood up to Trump and held him accountable for both his civil and criminal wrongdoing? However, is there any evidence to suggests this is going to happen?

I know that most of us view the justice system as fair and impartial, and I’d like to think that’s true in most cases. However, our judicial system was not designed for the circumstances we find ourselves in currently. Rather than fair and impartial justice, we have seen courts bend over backwards to accommodate Trump. They’ve allowed him to post lower bonds than other defendants would be required to post. They’ve allowed him to threaten and denigrate judges, prosecutors, potential witnesses, and their families. No other defendant would be allowed to say a fraction of the things Trump has said and published without being jailed for contempt. Courts have issued “gag orders,” but they’ve not seriously enforced them. And Trump has been allowed to delay trials in ways no other defendant would be allowed to do, and which has effectively denied justice to the government and the people they represent.

A civil court found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation, yet he has not been forced to pay a judgement. Trump’s company was found to have committed fraud, yet he has not paid a penalty and will likely draw the case out until the judgement is meaningless. He was indicted on 91 criminal counts in four different jurisdictions, yet only one of those cases even has a trial date. Even if they go to trial, Trump will likely be allowed to delay and appeal until he either becomes president again, giving him the power to end some of the cases against him, or he dies and the charges simply go away.

I don’t mean to sound hopeless. Neither do I want to suggest that authorities shouldn’t bother to pursue charges against Trump. They absolutely should, and the prosecutions should be vigorous and unrelenting. What I do want to say though is that we should not count on the courts to save us. It is highly unlikely that they will or can.

The only thing that is going to stop the Trump train from reaching the station is if all people of good faith get out and vote in November and if we are diligent in our defense of our democracy. At every opportunity, we must stand up for our democratic way of life and governance.

It’s an overused phrase, but we are literally fighting for the soul of our country. Are we going to remain a democracy that honors the Constitution and the rule of law, or are we going to become an authoritarian regime, headed up by a buffoonish cult leader, run by a group of right-wing extremists, and featuring a legal system that acts at the whim of the leader and is designed to protect the few and punish the many? That is the choice we face.

But before we can get there, we must start being serious about the problem and realistic about the solution. Let’s get realistic, then let’s fight to preserve our democracy, our rights, and our way of life.

*The Bible verse MTG points to doesn’t really say what she claims it says. Here is the verse:

“54 He said to the crowd: ‘When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘It’s going to rain,’ and it does. 55 And when the south wind blows, you say, ‘It’s going to be hot,’ and it is. 56 Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky.”

 

This is a series of posts involving Dr. Timothy Snyder’s book On Tyranny. In the book, Snyder, a professor at Yale University who specializes in the history of tyrannical movements, shares twenty lessons on how to address and defeat tyranny.

Each lessons contains a short amount of text as well as a video featuring Snyder expanding on the text. This is lesson #6:

Lesson #6: Be Wary of Paramilitaries

“When the men with guns who have always claimed to be against the system start wearing uniforms and marching with torches and pictures of a leader, the end is nigh. When the pro-leader paramilitary and the official police and military intermingle, the end has come.”

This is a series of posts involving Dr. Timothy Snyder’s book On Tyranny. In the book, Snyder, a professor at Yale University who specializes in the history of tyrannical movements, shares twenty lessons on how to address and defeat tyranny.

Each lessons contains a short amount of text as well as a video featuring Snyder expanding on the text. This is lesson #5:

Lesson 5: Remember Professional Ethics

“When political leaders set a negative example, professional commitments to just practice become more important. It is hard to subvert a rule-of-law state without lawyers, or to hold show trials without judges. Authoritarians need obedient civil servants, and concentration camp directors seek businessmen interested in cheap labor.”

This is a series of posts involving Dr. Timothy Snyder’s book On Tyranny. In the book, Snyder, a professor at Yale University who specializes in the history of tyrannical movements, shares twenty lessons on how to address and defeat tyranny.

Each lessons contains a short amount of text as well as a video featuring Snyder expanding on the text. This is lesson #4:

Lesson #4: Take Responsibility for the Face of the World

“The symbols of today enable the reality of tomorrow. Notice the swastikas and the other signs of hate. Do not look away, and do not get used to them. Remove them yourself and set an example for others to do so.”

 

This is a series of posts involving Dr. Timothy Snyder’s book On Tyranny. In the book, Snyder, a professor at Yale University who specializes in the history of tyrannical movements, shares twenty lessons on how to address and defeat tyranny.

Each lessons contains a short amount of text as well as a video featuring Snyder expanding on the text. This is lesson #3:

Lesson #3: Beware the One Part State

“The parties that remade states and suppressed rivals were not omnipotent from the start. They exploited a historic moment to make political life impossible for their opponents. So support the multi-party system and defend the rules of democratic elections. Vote in local and state elections while you can. Consider running for office.”

This is a series of posts involving Dr. Timothy Snyder’s book On Tyranny. In the book, Snyder, a professor at Yale University who specializes in the history of tyrannical movements, shares twenty lessons on how to address and defeat tyranny.

Each lessons contains a short amount of text as well as a video featuring Snyder expanding on the text. This is lesson #2:

Lesson #2: Defend Institutions

“Follow the courts or the media, or a court or a newspaper. Do not speak of ‘our institutions’ unless you are making them yours by acting on their behalf.
Institutions don’t protect themselves. They go down like dominoes unless each is defended from the beginning.”

This is a series of posts involving Dr. Timothy Snyder’s book On Tyranny. In the book, Snyder, a professor at Yale University who specializes in the history of tyrannical movements, shares twenty lessons on how to address and defeat tyranny.

Each lessons contains a short amount of text as well as a video featuring Snyder expanding on the text. This is lesson #1:

Lesson #1: Do Not Obey in Advance

“Much of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then start to do it without being asked. You’ve already done this, haven’t you? Stop. Anticipatory obedience teaches authorities what is possible and accelerates unfreedom.”

I often refer to things Dr. Timothy Snyder says. Snyder is a history professor at Yale University who specializes in the history of fascistic and authoritarian movements around the world. He has been a welcome and important voice at a time when the United States is witnessing attacks on our democracy from the Republican Party, both within and outside of government.

Snyder recently took to X (formerly Twitter) to talk about comments made by Donald Trump during a political rally in Dayton, OH last weekend. In his speech, Trump referred to people imprisoned for their role in the January 6 attack on the Capitol as “political prisoners” and “hostages.” He even stood and saluted while a revamped version of the “National Anthem” played over loudspeakers. The alternative version of the “National Anthem,” re-named “Justice for All,” was sung by the J6 Prison Choir and featured the voice of Trump himself reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

It’s hard to put into words how sickening and un-American this all is, but Trump wasn’t finished yet. During his address to the gathered crowd, Trump predicted that there would be a “bloodbath” in the country if he does not win the Presidential Election this November. Snyder recognized the scene as something straight out of Nazi Germany. Here’s what he said:

“The thing Trump did in Dayton – celebrating his fascist movement’s dubious “martyrs” – is exactly what Goebbels and Hitler did between the Nazis’ failed coup and their seizure of power. Their song was called the Horst Wessel Song. 

“The Nazis were obsessive about being the victims. Once in power they put up monuments to their “martyrs.” They sang their Horst Wessel Song as they conquered countries and killed millions to say that they, the Nazis, were the real victims and therefore always innocent. 

“Trump’s claim that his people are hostages and political prisoners is meant to justify endless revenge on whomever he wishes as soon as he is in power. That is how this martyrdom thing works. We know it from the history of fascism.

“Trump promised a ‘bloodbath for the country’ if he’s not elected president. Then followed the predictable bout of (self-)deception, claiming Trump’s bloodbath (comment) was out of context…Trump is telling them (and us) that he doesn’t really plan to win the election. As he did in 2016, as he did in 2020, he is telling us that the vote count does not decide the issue for him.”

In his book, On Tyranny, Snyder lays out a 20-point plan to address and defeat the type of anti-democratic efforts being put forth by Trump and his supporters. He begins his book with these words:

“Americans are no wiser that the Europeans who saw democracy yield to fascism, Nazism, or communism. Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience. Now is a good time to do so.”

In the coming weeks, I will share the 20 lessons Snyder includes in his book. Each lesson will be accompanied by a video Snyder did designed to expand his thoughts and further explain each lesson.

Although I’m incredibly grateful to Snyder for writing the book and creating the video lessons, I’m heartbroken and horrified that we in the United States find ourselves at a place where such a book and video lessons are necessary.

The series on fighting tyranny will begin on Monday, March 25. Each Monday for the next ten weeks, I’ll feature two of Snyder’s 20 lessons. I hope you’ll follow along.