WASHINGTON, DC- On the day after Democrats impeached President Trump, a House Democrat introduced a resolution which would ban President Trump from entering the United States Capitol Complex after he leaves office next week, according to Law & Crime.
The two-page resolution, H. Res. 6 was introduced by Georgia Rep. Nikema Williams and would direct the Capitol police and the sergeant-at-arms in the House and Senate to take any action “as may be necessary” to keep the president “from entering the United States Capitol at any time” after his presidency ends.
Williams is a freshman member of Congress but is a longtime activist in Georgia and is currently one year into her term as chair of Georgia’s Democratic Party.
The text of the resolution reads as follows:
Directing the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, and the United States Capitol Police to prohibit President Donald John Trump from entering the United States Capitol at any time after the expiration of his term as President.
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), SECTION 1. Prohibiting President Trump from entering the United States Capitol.
The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, and the United States Capitol Police shall take such actions as may be necessary to prohibit President Donald John Trump from entering the United States Capitol at any time after the expiration of his term as President.
The proposal, referred to the House Committee on House Administration, however it is likely unconstitutional, which a novice like Williams probably wouldn’t know. The Constitution prohibits any law that is directed toward a specific individual, known as “bill of attainder.”
According to Allan Lichtman, a professor of political science at American University, believes a judge would have final say on any such law. “If this bill is passed, it would be a matter for the courts to settle,” Lichtman told Mediaite as reported in the Conservative News Daily.
Democrats have laid the blame on the president for the violence that took place at the Capitol on January 6, however a timeline of events outlined in USA Today seems to contradict the assertion that President Trump’s words incited the incident.
According to the timeline, President Trump started speaking at around 11:50 am. USA Today noted that the president spoke for over an hour, which puts the end of his speech just before 1:00 pm. USA Today noted that the violence with police began on the Capitol steps at 1:10 pm.
It would have been impossible for people who attended Trump’s speech to make it from there to the Capitol in 10 minutes. Estimates are that it would have taken a minimum of 45 minutes to get from the Ellipse to the Capitol, likely longer due to the throng of people.
At 1:26 pm, Capitol police ordered the evacuation of the Library of Congress, Madison Building and Cannon House Office Building across from the Capitol.
There are other questions being raised as well. According to the New York Times, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund told the Washington Post that the Sergeants at Arms for the House and Senate, Michael C. Stenger and Paul D. Irving that they refused his requests to put the National Guard on standby leading up to the Electoral College certification vote.
Sund was told by the two they were concerned about the “optics” such a move would have.
It would be interesting to know what both Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) knew, and when they knew it.
The failure of both men to take action on the former chief’s requests lead to questions about whether they placed politics over the safety of Congressional members, staff and journalists.
Moreover, according to Terrance Gainer, who had held both the position of Capitol chief of police and the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms said that politics often plays a role in how decisions about security at the Capitol are made.
Gainer said that based on his experience, Capitol security officials had to run any security plans by members of Congress prior to major events.
He noted that given criticisms directed toward President Trump after demonstrations turned violent outside the White House last summer, lawmakers were sensitive to the optics given their sharp criticism of the president when the White House was laid under siege, forcing Trump to the bunker below the White House.
“It wouldn’t surprise me, having been chief, if there was some reticence on behalf of leadership in the House and Senate not wanting to look like we were overarmed,” Gainer said.
Former Secret Service officials said that neither Stenger nor Irving were likely equipped with such a dynamic security issue such as a siege as was faced on January 6.
Former agency officials noted for example that Stenger didn’t have a prominent Secret Service role in a security detail protecting either a president or vice president; in one of his final posts, they said, he led the Office of Protective Research, an intelligence division that investigates threats against the president.
Irving meanwhile served in a role that had little to do with day-to-day security protection. He worked in the Secret Service’s congressional liaison office, which was mostly working with lawmakers and their aides, answering questions about the Secret Service and arranging testimony for top officials.
—
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
