On January 6, at least, the right wing “Stop the Steal” movement used violence in a rally-cum-riot, to show their displeasure over a supposedly stolen election.

But the mob that stormed the Capitol was not a well-organized group, and they certainly never actually attempted to seize control of the government.   Had that been their goal, they would have been carrying firearms.   For the most part, they were not.  At this time there is no evidence of a wide-ranging centralized plan.  It was simply the confluence of a large group of people who happened to be at the same place at the same time, and the intoxicating, steady diet of rhetoric from their president and right-wing influencers like Fox News.     Exactly the kind of group-think, mob mentality that makes riots so unpredictable.

The mob didn’t want to reject the US Constitution.  In their minds at that moment in time, they were patriots defending the Constitution, but were willing to use antidemocratic means in a last-ditch effort to restore an election believed by them to be riddled with fraud.    They were so deluded they believed in the righteousness of their actions.   While they may not actually have attempted to overthrow the government, they certainly broke a myriad of other Federal laws.

I am sure Mr. Trump took great pleasure in the debacle; to him it was his base showing their absolute fealty.    So, is he to blame?  He certainly was the most important contributing factor.   Without his constant haranguing about a stolen election, this group would never have been in Washington.    He spun them up and turned them loose, content in his belief that he was not responsible for what they did.     The rioters suffered from a collective mass delusion inspired and nurtured by Donald Trump.  Does inspiration mean culpability?  I sure don’t know. The answer may well lie in the legal definition of incitement to riot and its interpretation by a Federal Court. **

Fortunately, in this country, delusion or the inability to think clearly is not a defense.   One cannot simply claim that one was deluded, then commit an illegal act and be excused for that act.  If this was the case, then anyone who was drunk or high on drugs could claim he/she wasn’t in their right mind and therefore not responsible for their actions.   But that’s not the way it works. Granted, a person has diminished judgment and capabilities when they are intoxicated, but the reason being drunk or under the influence of drugs is not a defense to a crime in that it was a voluntary influence. 

The same goes for these people who now claim that they had been inflamed and/or misled by Mr. Trump for months, and were simply doing his bidding.    All Americans heard Mr. Trump’s false stolen election claims, but the majority of Americans dismissed him and his rhetoric as sour grapes or the ranting of a lunatic, and elected President Biden.  The few who drank the Kool-Aid and acted upon it, did so voluntarily.    The rioters made the choice to believe the stories of a stolen election.  They made the choice to travel to Washington D.C., and they made the choice to be a part of the group that marched on the capitol.   Whether they were simply observers or actively engaged in violence, each should be held equally responsible for their choice. 

Accomplice liability is a form of liability for individuals who were of some assistance in a criminal act that is based on the idea of agency law. In law, an accomplice is an individual who actively participates in the commission of a crime without necessarily taking part in the actual criminal offense.

Just as the driver of a getaway car is equally responsible for a murder committed by the bank robbery crew in the course of the robbery, I believe that each and every one of the people who were even tangentially associated with the rabble that broke into and ransacked the building has accomplice liability.  

To paraphrase Donald Trump and the MAGA zealots: “Lock them up.”

**18 U.S. Code § 2101

As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.