On Jan. 6, a mob, fomented by then-President Donald Trump and his political allies, laid siege to the U.S. Capitol in a direct attempt to disrupt one of our democracy’s most sacred ceremonies — the counting of the electoral votes from November’s presidential election. For the first time since the War of 1812, the Capitol was breached. Rioters in tactical gear carried plastic restraints, fought past Capitol Police, and chanted “Hang Mike Pence!” This was nothing short of an attempted coup d’état and is the most serious threat our republic has faced in over a century.
Minnesota Rep. Michelle Fischbach, Congressional District 7, an alumna of one of Mitchell Hamline’s predecessor institutions, directly contributed to the incitement that led to the siege of the Capitol. First and foremost, she played a role in stirring up the insurgents by claiming on Fox News, without evidence, that the Democratic Party manufactured votes. These claims of election fraud are baseless and dangerous; 61 lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies in an effort to overturn the election were rejected by the courts, and many of the lawyers involved now face sanctions or disbarment. Refusing to tell people the truth about the election was a significant contributing factor in the attack on the Capitol. The former president has allegedly admitted privately that he knows the truth — that Joe Biden won the election fairly — and that this was nothing more than political theater.
Second, Fischbach has still refused to acknowledge that the former president, his supporters, white supremacists, and the Republican Party provoked these seditious acts through their false and unproved allegations about election fraud. Furthermore, Fischbach has not even acknowledged that the former president’s supporters were involved in the attack. Worse still, she engaged in efforts to disenfranchise millions of voters, many of them BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color), in Pennsylvania and Arizona by voting to challenge the counting of their Electoral College electors’ votes — even after the Capitol fell under attack by a mob that included white supremacists and fascists.
At the start of their term, representatives swear this oath:
I, … do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Fischbach has violated this sacred oath through her actions. Her falsehoods about the election outcome undermined our constitutional processes and added to the fomentation that led to the siege of the Capitol. Additionally, her efforts to disenfranchise millions of Americans is a disgusting insult to our democratic values. Fischbach based her objections on the Electoral Count Act of 1887, but according to Rebecca Green, director of William and Mary School of Law’s election law program, “It’s very clear that the states are the ones who evaluate any claims of irregularities. And it’s the job of Congress to count the official state certifications. Congress is not intended as the correct body for Congress to vet election irregularities.”
Claims of irregularity were evaluated and rejected: Pennsylvania officials certified their election results on Nov. 24, 2020, and Arizona officials certified the results of their election six days later. Officials in both states and of both parties announced that they were confident that the election was accurate and fair. Subsequent challenges by the president’s legal team failed to withstand judicial review. Concerns about the 2020 election were litigated in the proper forums ad nauseam, and yet Fischbach continued with an improper objection.
[image_caption]Michael Everett, Katy Rollins and Richard Penny[/image_caption]
This opinion piece is but one small act, yet we have an obligation to hold every member of our community accountable in upholding the values of justice and the rule of law. We call on Fischbach to resign her seat for betraying her sacred oath of office, contributing to the heinous falsehoods about the election, and working to disenfranchise millions of voters. This is not a request we take lightly, but for the sake of our blessed republic, truth, and the rule of law, those culpable for leading our nation to this crisis point must be held accountable.
Michael Everett is a 2L at Mitchell Hamline School of Law and a former congressional intern. Katy Rollins is a 3L, a leftist, and active in electoral organizing, previously interning for the Warren for President campaign and serving as field director for Jamie Becker-Finn’s Minnesota House race (42B). Richard Penny is a former Republican staffer and 2L Law Student.
The undersigned Mitchell Hamline School of Law classmates respectfully join in this request:
Annaliisa Gifford; Benjamin Larson; Brinda Shah; Catherine Rios-Keating; Claire Gutkecht; DeAijha Oliver; Eli Burgstahler; Elizabeth Dalke; Elizabeth Jacobson; Ellen Currier; Emily Gullickson; Gabe Aderhold; Gabriela Anderson; Grace Pastoor; Harold Melcher; Jared Shea; John-Paul Dees; Jonathan Long; Julia Durst; Kaitlin Yira; Katherine Raths; Katherine Wagner; Kayla Billett; Kelsi Nusbaum; Kevin Deno; Kiley Eichelberger; Lauren Shurson; Lindsay Dreyer; Louis Hunter; Madeline Post; Margaret Green; Meghan Holden; Molly Nunn; Morgan Richie; Mykah Henschel; Myles Artis; Nansy Mekhail; Nathan Baerg; Peter Schmitz; Rachel Kindt; Rachel Lantz; Sandy Xiong; Sean Hinnenkamp; Selma Demiorvic; and Wendy Carlson.
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)
Sadly, the basis for her resignation here was a feature, not a bug for her supporters. Never mind that this rural district replaced the head of the house agriculture committee with a Minneapolis lawyer.
Someone should tell these law students you are actually allowed to have an opinion. Even if it’s wrong. Maybe especially if it’s wrong.
Excusing sedition is unacceptable for a member of Congress. Spreading mendacious propaganda is no better.
Routine accusations. Both sides do it, and if we start making these kinds of accusations more than politics, there goes free speech.
Free speech does not apply to calls for or support for violent acts. I. e., one can’t use the free speech defense if he/she hollers (falsely) “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and people are injured or killed in the stampede. What happened here was a free and fair election as upheld by the courts, and to state otherwise, by members of Congress is an implied call for insurrection. Contrary to Fox News, there was no evidence that the Jan. 6 insurrection was led by anti-fa operatives. Fishbach, by her statements and votes, gave implied consent to those lawbreakers.
Many, many politicians and other public figures have made claims identical to Fischbach’s. Do we drag them all into court?
Seems like a good start. It may be time to define “speech” as not including lies. That is, you shouldn’t be able to claim free speech protection for a bald faced lie. Claiming that the 2020 presidential election was won by anyone by Joe Biden is, at this point, not only demonstrably false, but in the case of the politicians claiming it, a bald faced lie.
Please, tell me when any other side has been so persistent in spreading about a lie like “the election we lost was illegitimate, and the new President is not entitled to hold office.” Anything?
How about the times anyone else whipped a mob into a frenzy so that they stormed the Capitol building? When did that happen?
Both-siderism is nothing more than a form of moral cowardice. Rather than confront the failings of those whom one supports, the easy way out is to dismiss it as commonplace, or something the other side does. Even though it’s easy, it still is no excuse. No one is excused from their own failings because of some vague “everyone does it” talk.
Please, tell me when any other side has been so persistent in spreading about a lie like “the election we lost was illegitimate, and the new President is not entitled to hold office.” Anything?
Umm, the Democrats after Trump won? How short our memories.
“Umm, the Democrats after Trump won?”
How many lawsuits were filed to count and recount votes?
How many riots were incited to stop certification of the electoral vote?
What did Democrats say? Trump lost the popular vote (you may hate to admit it, but he did), and the mechanism by which he assumed office is an antiquated, anti-democratic relic? Sure, that’s totally the same thing as encouraging a mob and filing baseless lawsuits.
How convenient our memories.
Arguably, far more people thought Trump illegitimate. This was endorsed by the media, pop culture, and ended (or didn’t end) with a kangaroo court impeachment. You asked about equivalency. I answered.
Arguably, but you’re wrong. He was legitimately elected once by undemocratic means baked into our Constitution. That conferred on him legal legitimacy, if not moral or philosophical legitimacy.
I don’t think that you know what a “kangaroo court” is.
The idea that that the Democrats behaved the same way gets a lot of play on right-wing media, but its just a bald-faced lie. An absolute falsehood. Utter nonsense.
Quite a bit more damage from “protesters” after 2016 election than 2020.
Refresh my memory: Did they storm the Capitol to stop the certification of the electoral vote?
Absolutely. Democrats in far greater numbers simply rejected the election. “Not My President” was a major movement. Russia was accused, along with the incoming administration, of manipulation of the election. There was talk, serious talk, of an immediate impeachment.
All this “hot” speech died down, with time. Today we hardly remember it. In the same way, Obama was called by Republicans, broadly and continuously, the biggest liar of all time. We’ve almost completely forgotten that, too.
In the same way, Obama was called by Republicans, broadly and continuously, an illegitimate President, and a certain skeevy real estate developer gained his political prominence pushing the racist lie that Obama was/is not a native born citizen.
You cannot equate the criticism levelled at Trump, two time loser of the popular vote, with the vitriol directed at President Obama or eight years.
Umm, in what universe is a Constitutionally mandated Congressional legal proceeding, regardless of its timing, in any way equivalent to a lawless rebellion against the Union created by that Constitution?
Apples and oranges. That’s like saying that having a backyard bonfire is the equivalent of lighting an apartment complex on fire. Yeah, there was fire involved, but it’s not terribly difficult to see the difference.
These accusations are anything but “routine.” And, the argument that “both sides do it” is getting really, really old.
What utter nonsense. Free speech does not mean that there are no consequences for speech.
And “both sides” certainly don’t do what Fishbach did.
Sure they do. One side says Trump won the election. Which is nuts. The other side says Fischbach caused the riot. Which is equally nuts.
The second part isn’t nuts at all. Trump and his enablers repeatedly lied about the election and incited the violence that occurred. These people are seditionists and terrorists.
These law students just want her to be accountable for her opinions.
If accountable means being tossed out of office, yes.
Where does this bizarre idea that because something is an opinion, it is insulated from consequences come from? People lose their jobs for sharing opinions all the time.
Yes. It’s called Cancel Culture.
I know, right? CPAC cancelled one of their speakers just days before their “Uncancelled” conference.
Cancel culture is Republicans trying to censor other viewpoints.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Yes. Facts are what we all agree on. Not what you think is a fact. Not what I think. Everything else is opinion.
What a bizarre statement. The implication of that is that if you disagree with a fact, its not a fact any more, just an opinion.
No, facts are facts whether you believe in them or not.
My definition of a fact is a basic tenet of logic, from Aristotle to Descartes to Wittgenstein. If you disagree, take it up with them.
Your definition of “fact” as “something we all agree on” is nonsense.
It’s been awhile since I’ve read any of the names you have so blithely dropped, but I don’t recall any of them defining “truth” as a consensus.
You’ve dismissed Daniel P. Moynihan’s quotation about facts. I guess it’s easier than thinking. What do you say to evade Phillip K. Dick’s comment on the same subject? “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
It’s a bland, pseudo-profound, silly statement. Reality, as in the “reality” that the sun revolves around the earth, can indeed go away.
Philosophers and logicians have long accepted that “facts”, “truth”, “reality” were unprovable assumptions. However, in order to progress, we must have consensus. That consensus is we all agree on what is true and factual. That agreement makes it a fact.
Everything else is opinion.
I would have preferred, as I’m sure you would, a polite and constructive reply.
“My definition of a fact is a basic tenet of logic, from Aristotle to Descartes to Wittgenstein. If you disagree, take it up with them.” If you knew anything about logic or philosophy, you’d know that “what are facts” is one of the most disputed issues in the branch of philosophy called epistemology- the philosophy of mind, perception and knowledge. It’s one thing to question to the foundation of experience and knowledge intellectually; it’s quite another to deny that facts are only those things “we all agree about.” I wonder if anyone can at least agree on a definition of a “fact”, such as provided by the Cambridge English Dictionary: A fact is defined as “something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information.” A fact is not something “we all agree upon” or which waits for everyone to agree upon before it is known or proven to exist.
It’s a fact that Michelle Fischbach violated her Oath of office when by her own admission she voted to reject the certified election of results of various States. That’s because per Article II, Section 3 and the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution Fischbach had a right to be present when the votes of the certified election results were counted but neither she nor any of the other Representatives or Senators gathered for that purpose had any right, authority or duty to take any other action. By objecting to the certification and voting to reject, Fischbach and those who acted with her objectively failed to faithfully discharge the duties of their office, supported and defended the enemies of the Constitution and broke their Oath. Here’s another definition of the Cambridge English Dictionary of “insurrection”: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government or ruler and take control of the country, usually by violence.” Notice that “violence” or riot is not even a requirement. If former V-P Pence had not refused to join their despicable, evil attempt to “defeat their government” and “take control”, the actions of Fischbach and her co-insurrectionists would have objectively been a “coup d’etat” even without the violence that did occur.
What, if anything, can be done about it is another question. Fischbach and her fellow insurrectionists have proven themselves unfit to hold public office. She ought to resign. I still hope she and the rest might be removed by the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3. Whether they are ever held truly accountable politically or legally depends on whether Fischbach’s constituents or those of the other insurrectionists still believe in the Constitution, democracy or majority rule and the rule of law. Your comments suggest that is still an open question.
Your definition of fact makes a mockery of those thinkers. Your definition of fact is pure nonsense. It erases the concept of facts.
Ms. Wicklow, Descartes and Wittgenstein would reject your notion of logic. Logic does not establish facts, logic determines the coherence or incoherence of a proposition. You can make a perfectly logical proposal that a given number of angels can sit on the head of a pin, so long as the angels don’t exceed a certain size. The logical coherence of such a statement however doesn’t prove that angels exist, or that they actually sit on pin heads. This is a basic feature of logic typically discussed on the first day of an intro class.
Ms. Wicklow, I’m afraid you don’t appear to know what “fact” actually is. Facts exist independently of opinion. If “we” all agree that the sun revolves around the Earth, we are wrong. Facts are not consensus driven, they just are. If you add 4 apples to a bag that already has 4 apples, you will have 8 apples, whether you believe it or not.
If you “believe” Trump defeated Biden in the last election, you are simply wrong. If THAT is your “opinion”, then your opinion is wrong. If you believe there was massive voting fraud in the last election, you are simply wrong. We know you’re wrong about these thing because all of the FACTS tell us you’re wrong. You can’t be “right” simply because you don’t agree. Even if we all agreed Trump won the election, the fact is he didn’t.
A falsehood or lie is a falsehood or lie no matter how many people believe in it. Fischbach is promoting a falsehoods, and that fact disqualifies her as credible representative. The fact that Fischbach may believe this falsehood no more exonerates her than a belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy exonerates the Holocaust.
My definition is based on the Western tradition of philosophy and logic. Your example of the sun revolving around the earth is indeed helpful. Facts can change, and do. But the definition of a fact does not.
Facts do not change. The sun never revolved around the earth–that was never a fact. Our understanding of facts may change. “Truth” is probably the word you’re looking for. Truth can be based on the facts we know, and may change based on available facts. The sun revolving around the earth was never a fact, it was merely a temporary truth. When the Church denied the fact that the earth revolves around the sun as a matter of theological truth despite the actual facts is the moment where the truth became a lie–it didn’t change any facts. Facts can only change when conditions change, not opinions. For example, in January of 2020, the fact was that the vast majority Americans were not immune to COVID-19. In January 2021, that fact changed such that many, if not most Americans WERE immune (at least temporarily) to COVID-19. It didn’t matter what anyone understood or agreed upon. By the way, a truth stops being a truth when faced with facts that contravene them.
No, your definition of fact is based on Sean Hannity’s prattle. Simply disputing something is true does not make it no longer factual.
The point of the commentary is that Ms. Fishbach’s actions go way beyond “opinion,” and violate her oath of office.
Seems these students have a point.
From WaPo today.
“A former State Department staffer with a top-secret security clearance betrayed his oath of office when he joined the Capitol mob that attempted to subvert the electoral process on Jan. 6, a federal magistrate judge said Tuesday”.
“Quoting that oath, which requires federal workers and appointees to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Judge Zia M. Faruqui said that on Jan. 6, domestic enemies were striking “directly at the heart of our democracy” and Federico Klein “switched sides.”
Guess the same could be said about Fischbach and her treasonous friends too.
Well, thank you for your analysis. You might be right. History will be the final arbiter. However, I think history books will see this sedition claim as opinion, an example of our highly partisan era. You and others feel otherwise. Since we don’t have a time machine, pursuing this further is unproductive, but again, thank you for engaging.
Here’s what the gubmint say’s about sedition
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
So really not so much opinion as what some of those traitors will face. If it were up to me, the whole lot of them would be charged as such, become convicted felons, lose the right to vote, or own a gun again among other things, but the DOJ didn’t ask me. Pity.
The beautiful irony of the treasonous behavior is how stupid those people are. Like the guy who posed on Pelosi’s desk, now is whining about being jailed as unfair, or the young man (18) who is now contrite, and wants to be home with mommy and daddy. Funny thing is, they made their treasonous choices, and for many of those traitors, their lives have changed, and not in a good way.
I do get positively giddy when I see more charges have been filed, and more folks arrested. Makes my day.
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory,” ” prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States”
Oh dear, there is a lot of sedition going on in this country. We have lots of County Attorneys, prosecutors, Governors, etc. not enforcing laws in this country. There are not nearly enough prisons to house them all.
I see you purposely left out the modifier “by force.”
Never let accuracy stand in the way of a good comeback, right?
Sedition is a specific form of a crime that generally falls under the category of “obstruction of justice.” Except as RB Holbrook points out, it does require “by force” and, I’d add, “conspiracy.”
But you raise a point. Most, if not all, States also define the “prevent[ion], hinder[ing] or delay [of] the execution of any law” as “obstruction of justice.” A person can be charged and convicted for anything as menial as smarting off to a police officer or refusing to give an officer your true identity. I’ve read that it is not “obstruction of justice” or “resisting arrest” to refuse to obey an “unlawful order” of a police officer and you might be right. But I guarantee that if you try it, you will probably be arrested and will need to make your case to a jury or a judge long after you’ve lost your liberty.
I’m pretty sure that people who murder cops while attempting to overthrow the government based on outright lies about the election will always been seen as the criminals that they truly are. People will realize that the country elected a racist trust-fund kid who had failed in everything he had done in his life other than hosting a game show. And shockingly, he was a terrible and divisive president.
Someone should tell some commenters around here that the law students also have an opinion, this IS an opinion piece, and asking for a resignation is NOT removing anyone from office. These elementary observations.
This is cancel culture right here. The law students are expressing their opinion and you are trying to cancel them.
Fischbach is soft on sedition. Sad, really.
Ms. Fischbach, like her fellow Republican members of the House of Representatives from Minnesota, did more than express an opinion. There was no “steal” to “stop.” Trump lost the election, or, to put a more positive spin on it, Biden won the election handily, by several million popular votes and several dozen electoral votes. Fischbach voted, as did her fellow Minnesota Republicans, to overturn an election that was, according to every official and court of law before which it was brought for examination, perfectly legitimate. As Richard Sethre has noted above, voting in that manner goes way beyond “opinion,” and violates the oath of office that Fischbach and her fellow Republicans took when they were sworn into office. Violation of that oath makes Fischbach and her ideological consorts traitors. She richly deserves every bit of criticism coming her way for that action, and a good deal more. If she doesn’t resign – and I’d be surprised if she had character enough to do so – she should be removed from office, as should the other Republicans in the House who voted with her to overturn the election.
Fischbach violated her oath of office even before she took it. Hand on Bible, she lied. She did not protect our nation – she supported sedition.
Fischbach is essentially following Josh Hasley’s lead based on the principle that he was defending the interests of Missouri voters who were some how disenfranchised by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court deciding that Biden is the legitimate winner of the state’s 20 electoral votes.
These folks obviously believe that the Constitution failed to provide proper redress for a “stolen election” yet none of them have had a single suggestion why the Constitution failed them and how it needs to be changed to insure this does not happen again,
Instead they wave the flag, profess their Constitutional love and support an insurrection.
In other words, they are nuts. Which is perfectly aligned with the voters of CD 7 who find the challenges of Somalian voter preferences in Minneapolis more critical to their futures than a market for their primary crop/product.
And the chances that these voters will see the likes of Fischbach, Cruz and Hawley for the authoritarian frauds they are is nil.
A very sensible and cogent argument by the authors, and wonderful commentary, thanks to all.
I can only add that the disgusting Rep. Fischbach is faithfully representing the views of a sizable majority of her benighted Minnesota constituents, and that this is the bigger problem. I fully understand that she is doing nothing to disabuse them of their baseless, fact-free opinions on the reality of the 2020 elections, and therefore plays a part in reinforcing their condign ignorance. But they as voters bear the ultimate blame for granting a reprehensible, anti-democratic creature like Fischbach political power, and in embracing the fascistic nonsense she (and the rest of the Rightwing Noise Machine) are peddling.