The newly formed January 6th Committee has begun its hearings with a markedly different dynamic than its predecessor. Unlike the previous iteration, this committee allows Republicans to select members for the opposition, leading to pointed exchanges. A recent confrontation between Representative Harriet Hageman (R., Wyo.) and Representative Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) highlighted a key disagreement over the legal definition of “insurrection” and related charges.
Dispute Over Legal Definitions
The exchange began after Hageman secured an admission from a witness that no one had been charged with “incitement” related to the events of January 6th. Raskin then asserted that charges of “seditious conspiracy” were equivalent to “insurrection,” a claim that Hageman challenged. The core of the dispute centers on the legal distinctions between these charges and the narrative surrounding the events of that day.
Raskin initially referenced Pamela Hemphill, stating she was a “convicted insurrectionist” who had rejected a pardon. Hageman quickly countered, questioning whether anyone had actually been convicted under the federal insurrection statute. Former Justice Department prosecutor Michael Romano admitted under questioning that neither former President Trump nor any rioter had been charged with insurrection.
No Insurrection Charges Filed
Despite initial speculation and media coverage suggesting potential insurrection or incitement charges against Trump and his associates, no such charges were ever filed. District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine even considered arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks on incitement charges, but ultimately did not pursue them. The FBI’s investigation also did not uncover evidence of a broader insurrection.
The Supreme Court further refined the legal landscape by rejecting obstruction charges in some cases related to the January 6th events. Despite these legal developments, the narrative of an “insurrection” persisted, even being used in attempts to disqualify Trump and other Republicans from ballots.
The exchange continued with Hageman pressing Romano on Hemphill’s conviction, ultimately securing an admission that she was not convicted of insurrection. Raskin then argued that seditious conspiracy should be considered equivalent to insurrection, a point contested by Hageman and legal experts.
Seditious Conspiracy vs. Insurrection
Seditious conspiracy, outlined in 18 U.S.C. 2384, involves efforts to interfere with the execution of laws, and does not necessarily require intent to overthrow the government. Raskin’s view, that any interference with federal law constitutes insurrection, contrasts with his opposition to invoking the Insurrection Act in other contexts. A Justice Department official previously stated the intention was to pursue the most severe charges possible, but ultimately, no one was charged with insurrection.
Frequently Asked Questions
What sparked the recent exchange between Representatives Hageman and Raskin?
The exchange was sparked by a disagreement over whether anyone had been convicted of “insurrection” in connection with the January 6th events. Representative Raskin initially claimed Pamela Hemphill was a “convicted insurrectionist,” a claim Representative Hageman challenged.
Were any charges of insurrection ever filed in relation to January 6th?
No, no one – including former President Trump or any of the rioters – was ever charged with insurrection. While some individuals were charged with seditious conspiracy, this is legally distinct from insurrection.
What is the difference between seditious conspiracy and insurrection, according to the source?
Seditious conspiracy, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2384, involves interfering with the execution of laws. Insurrection, while potentially encompassing such interference, generally implies an intent to overthrow the government, a threshold not met in the charges brought forward.
As the new J6 Committee continues its work, it remains to be seen how these differing interpretations of events and legal definitions will shape the committee’s findings and public perception of January 6th.
