Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson aggressively shredded Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) Thursday evening over the senator’s comments calling the events of Jan. 6 a “terrorist attack,” in a now-viral segment that has drawn widespread mockery for Cruz’s “pathetic” and “groveling” response.
Carlson ranted that it was a “lie” to use the term “terrorist attack,” because none of the alleged participants had been charged with terrorism, and he absolutely laid into Cruz, a Harvard Law-educated attorney, for trying to claim he had used the term accidentally.
Let’s be clear that Carlson was right about one thing: Cruz didn’t use that term accidentally. In the speech from the Senate floor that drew Carlson’s ire, Cruz said the following:
We are approaching a solemn anniversary this week. And it is an anniversary of a violent terrorist attack on the Capitol where we saw the men and women of law enforcement demonstrate incredible courage, incredible bravery, risk their lives to defend the
men and women who serve in this Capitol.
It’s highly unlikely that a Senator — especially one who is actively salivating about running for president again in 2024 — would make a floor speech about an event certain to garner major media attention without running the speech through multiple drafts with their speechwriters and campaign consultants.
Even if you wanted to believe the claim that Cruz made the very rare decision to speak totally off-the-cuff, and was “sloppy” in his word choice, that’s negated by Cruz’s own past comments.
CNN’s fact checker Daniel Dale deployed his well-established skill of combing the internet for the receipts that prove politicians’ pants to be on fire, and he found that Cruz “had described the Capitol riot as a terrorist attack or broadly described rioters as terrorists over and over for months — at least 17 previous times in official written statements, in tweets, in remarks at Senate hearings and in interviews.”
Alright. Fine. So Carlson was correct to metaphorically smack Cruz around a bit for trying to weasel out of what he had said (seventeen times!), but what about the Fox News host’s broader point, that it was a “lie” to use the term “terrorism” in regards to Jan. 6, since no one had been charged with that crime? Was it really just a lazy repetition of Attorney General Merrick Garland&
The actual federal statute that talks about “domestic terrorism” is 18 U.S. Code § 2331(5), which provides the following definition of the phrase (18 U.S. Code § 2331(1) provides a similarly-worded definition of “international terrorism”):
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;(B) appear to be intended—(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
However, there is no federal law making it a crime to commit an act of domestic terrorism, to belong to a domestic terrorist organization, or to provide material support to domestic terrorists.
Again, to be clear: there is no crime of “domestic terrorism” under current federal law.
There is simply no charge a federal prosecutor could bring against a defendant for “domestic terrorism,” although they may sometimes introduce domestic terrorism issues to be considered for enhanced sentencing, for example, after a defendant was convicted of charges like hate crimes, homicide, use of weapons of mass destruction, etc.
A few states have statutes that make acts of domestic terrorism a crime.
But these state laws are not charges that a federal prosecutor could bring.
Palm Beach County (Florida) State Attorney Dave Aronberg agreed that since there was no federal crime for domestic terrorism, “there’s nothing a federal prosecutor could charge” with that label.
However, he said, “it’s not an unfair or inaccurate term to use, it’s just not a tool in the arsenal of federal prosecutors.”
“I was just making this point yesterday,” Aronberg said, that “because there is no federal domestic terrorism statute, that is why no one has been charged with domestic terrorism stemming from the events of January 6,” and the definition that was provided in 18 U.S. Code § 2331 is “what confuses people.”
Aronberg noted there were states like Michigan that may have domestic terrorism laws, mentioning the Crumbley case, and said he hadn’t seen such charges brought against defendants in his county.
The topic had
Still, Aronberg continued, his view was that “it’s right to call the ones who committed violence [at the Capitol on Jan. 6] domestic terrorists, that’s fair, look at the statutory definition,” and he mentioned past tweets and television commentary where he had made that exact point, regarding both the Capitol riots and violence that occurred during the protests during the summer of 2020.
Asked about the Texas senator’s specific comments, Aronberg (who, fair disclosure, is in elected office as a Democrat) said “Ted Cruz knows better,” and he’s right.
Cruz’s appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight Thursday was not a surprise and the topic was not an ambush. Carlson had lambasted Cruz on Wednesday, openly called on Cruz to explain “what the hell’s going on here,” and Cruz answered Carlson’s invitation, texting him shortly after the show aired and asking to come on the following night.
Now, Cruz — a former Texas Solicitor General, legal advisor to the
You know, like a real lawyer might do.
Instead, he groveled.
He groveled and said he was sorry.
Sorry for what? For using a fair and accurate phrase, “terrorist attack,” to describe the actions of violent rioters?
Rioters who broke down fences and barricades, smashed through glass windows and doors, assaulted uniformed police officers with a wide variety of weapons, built a gallows and chanted “Hang Mike Pence,” stormed the chambers of the Speaker of the House while her staff hid terrified under a table in an interior office, sent the vice president and members of Congress fleeing for their lives and barricading themselves behind doors, and committed acts of vandalism and burglary throughout the United States Capitol.
Rioters who sought to interrupt the certification of the Electoral College votes that said that the candidate they wanted to win actually lost. Rioters who chanted “Stop the Steal” as they swarmed up the Capitol steps, physically overpowering badly outnumbered law enforcement, motivated by the baseless claims of former President Donald Trump
Is that not seeking “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion”? Of course it is. It’s a shame Cruz was too cowardly to defend his own words saying so.