The Real January 6 Bullet America Dodged

January 6 almost became the date the Left turned America into a banana republic by making prison the cost of losing an election. Had they succeeded, on every J6 anniversary, they would trot out bureaucrats, academics, journalists, poets, Democratic Congressmen, and D.C. Metro Police veterans—whose stories of valor against a white nationalist uprising would grow more embellished every year—to remind future generations of the day the Right almost destroyed "the American experiment."

Their plot failed because American voters live in a different reality from the bureaucrats, academics, journalists, poets, and useful grifters like Jamie Raskin and Adam Schiff. Sending Donald Trump back to the White House has forever sealed the American people's repudiation of the leftists' imagined epic of democracy in which they always fall on the right side of history.

To avoid future abuses of power after a president leaves office, voters should remain vigilant against politically-motivated prosecutions. Where possible, Congress should limit the scope of such prosecutions through new legislation, and Trump's DOJ should look into possible criminal consequences for this type of behavior. Most importantly, Americans who believe in the constitution should never forget how a D.C. grand jury, Special Counsel Jack Smith, and the biased U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan tried to set a precedent that would destroy the American republic.

(READ MORE: The Dark Money Intimidation Group Attacking Election Lawyers)

Remembering What They Wanted to Put Trump in Jail For

The grand jury indictment against Trump and his six “co-conspirators” over J6 threatened to send him to prison for 1st Amendment-protected speech. It alleged he "spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won," essentially accusing him of perjury against the American people. However, if former presidents can be prosecuted for lying to the public, winning a presidential election would all but guarantee future indictments. Even if such a crime existed, grand jurors and prosecutors could not determine or prove that Trump and his co-conspirators believed he lost the 2020 election, as nowhere in the indictment does it show Trump or his allies conspired to deceive the American people.

Instead, the indictment treats expert opinion as evidence. One must remember this was a grand jury selected from a pool of people who vote over 90 percent Democrat and rely on expert opinion for everything, including the definition of a woman. According to the original indictment, Trump "knew" there was no electoral fraud because a few lawyers, the Director of National Intelligence, and officials at the DOJ and DHS said so. The superseding indictment cites a statement by the National Association of Secretaries of State, the National Association of State Election Directors, and "other organizations" declaring the 2020 election "the most secure in American history" as evidence that Trump "knew" there was no electoral fraud. The original indictment even cites state legislators' opinions as evidence Trump "knew" the election lacked fraud but discounts the opinion of other state legislators who agreed with Trump. 

This level of absurdity could as easily apply to someone who claimed there was no fraud during the 2020 election. Imagine the uproar if Trump won, despite the irregularities, and his DOJ then prosecuted Democrats for allegedly covering up the fraud by denying its existence.

The Lie That Trump Overstepped Free Speech

The States United Democracy Center, a leftist organization founded by former Obama White House "ethics czar" Norm Eisen, argues the indictment doesn't violate the 1st Amendment because it recognizes "The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won." But the indictment limits Trump's 1st Amendment right to complaints and litigation. It then lists the ways he allegedly overstepped these bounds, all tied to the allegation that he conspired with and provoked the J6 rioters to obstruct an official proceeding of Congress. It accuses him of "dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government…" 

This included Trump's having an unorthodox opinion on the constitution. He tried to convince former Vice President Mike Pence the VP had the constitutional authority to reject or return electoral votes to states that experienced perceived electoral fraud. Under no circumstances did this constitute defeating a "lawful federal government function," as Pence was free to—and did, in fact—ignore Trump's opinion.

It also cites Trump's subtle threat to fire the acting Attorney General if he and the Deputy Attorney General did not sign a letter, stating the DOJ had "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states." This allegedly aimed to give "knowingly false claims of election fraud…the backing of the federal government." Although Trump did not fire the acting AG over his refusal to sign the letter, even if he had replaced him with a lackey, he had the authority as president to fire and hire whom he pleased. This represents another example of D.C. political culture clouding the grand jury’s judgment. The bureaucracy is not the fourth branch of government as many in the nation's capital seem to believe.

Regarding the alleged conspiring "against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted," Trump never advocated disruption of the electoral certification. This would be like indicting Glenn Beck if anti-Affordable Care Act protesters had stormed the Capitol in 2010. Arguably, Trump's rhetoric paled in comparison to many of the Tea Party leaders a decade prior. He had no reason to believe and gave no indication he wanted the January 6 protesters to behave differently than Tea Party protesters during the Obamacare debate. 

A clear falsehood in the indictment states Trump "directed the crowd in front of him to go to the Capitol as a means to obstruct the certification and pressure the Vice President to fraudulently obstruct the certification." Trump actually said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make [their] voices heard."

Nobody Was Caught by Surprise

He knew they would be marching to the Capitol because his supporters had already planned the day's itinerary on the now-defunct social media platform Parler where they planned and promoted the three D.C. Stop the Steal rallies. Before Trump even took the podium, this author—as everyone else who attended the speech—already knew the crowd would march to the Capitol to protest certification after the speech finished. But even if the crowd had gone to the Capitol at Trump's behest, it is not a crime to try to obstruct any vote in Congress by peaceably assembling, and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, as J6 organizers intended.

This bit of prosecutorial amateurism in the indictment likely came from a protective service officer who emailed his colleagues during Trump's speech, "POTUS is encouraging the protesters to march to capitol grounds and continue protesting there," something law enforcement should have known days in advance.

Trump concluded his speech, urging supporters to give weak Republicans "the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back" the country. But even if he'd urged them to scare the hell out of weak Republicans, the rioters would have never heard it. They decided to skip the speech and go straight for the Capitol barricades, which they breached at 12:53 p.m., 17 minutes before Trump finished speaking.

After the speech, the atmosphere remained somber as his supporters slowly moved toward the Capitol that—unbeknownst to them—was already under siege. Unlike the previous Stop the Steal rallies in D.C., January 6 fell on a weekday and included larger numbers of the elderly and mothers with small children. A few young men tried to liven the crowd with chants but found little interest among their fellow marchers. This was not a crowd whose leader had just inspired to insurrection but rather one resigned to the fruitless task of protesting a stolen election in 40-degree weather. 

At no point did Trump use the office of the presidency to coerce states to reject Biden's electors or urge his supporters to invade the Capitol while Congress was in session. His conversations with states' Attorneys General, Pence, and members of his administration expressed his belief that Democrats had defrauded him of victory and that they should do something about it. He had a 1st Amendment right to express this, and they had a 1st Amendment Right to contradict or ignore him.

Trump—and America—Dodged a Bullet

If Trump had lost the 2024 election, without unlikely clemency from President Kamala Harris, he would probably spend the rest of his life in prison because he dared question the experts on the 2020 election. Although this would constitute a great personal injustice, the country would suffer far worse from the precedent. This would shield future electoral fraudsters from criticism, discourage competent leaders from running for office, and entrench the ignorant D.C. grand jurors' understanding of the 1st amendment.

(READ MORE: How Deep Does Deep State Corruption Go? A New J6 Documentary Probes for Answers)