By
After Taylor James Johnatakis led an attack on police officers during the Jan. 6 attack, federal prosecutors charged the Washington man with a variety of felony counts, including obstruction of an official proceeding and assaulting law enforcement officials. During his trial, Johnatakis represented himself and presented arguments that the judge in the case described as “gobbledygook.”
As the proceedings came to an end, the outcome surprised no one: Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan-appointed jurist, said he was troubled by the defendant’s “lack of remorse” and the prospect that he might again engage in violence. Johnatakis was then sentenced to seven years in federal prison.
But while the sentence was itself notable, so too was Lamberth taking the opportunity to reflect on the broader circumstances. CNN reported:
“This cannot become normal. ... We cannot condone the normalization of the January 6 US Capitol riot,” US District Judge Royce Lamberth said while sentencing Taylor James Johnatakis to more than seven years in prison. The judge warned of a “vicious cycle ... that could imperil our institutions” if Americans, upset with future election results, resort to the “vigilantism, lawlessness and anarchy” that occurred on January 6, 2021.
The report added that the judge went on to explain that the Jan. 6 riot “was not civil disobedience,” but instead was a “corrosive” and “selfish, not patriotic” affront to the nation, where Americans were “battling (their) own representative government.”
“We as a society, as a community, and as a country cannot normalize the events of Jan. 6,” Lamberth added.
If this sounds at all familiar, it’s not your imagination. Just six months after the Jan. 6 attack, one of the earlier criminal cases involved a 49-year-old Indiana woman who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of demonstrating inside the Capitol. When it came time for sentencing, it was Lamberth who took the opportunity to comment on Republican efforts to rewrite the history of the insurrectionist violence.
“I’m especially troubled by the accounts of some members of Congress that January 6 was just a day of tourists walking through the Capitol,” Lamberth said in June 2021. “I don’t know what planet they were on. ... This was not a peaceful demonstration. It was not an accident that it turned violent; it was intended to halt the very functioning of our government.”
Nearly three years later, the conservative judge was still at it, declaring at a resentencing hearing that he was “shocked” at how prominent political figures were describing Jan. 6 criminals with “preposterous” rhetoric that “could presage further danger to our country.”
“[I]n my 37 years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream,” Lamberth added at the time. He went on to say, “I have been dismayed to see distortions and outright falsehoods seep into the public consciousness.
This commentary came three months ago. Evidently, the conservative jurist’s concerns have not faded.
What’s more, Lamberth’s conclusions served as a timely reminder that some of the most eloquent commentary on Jan. 6 has come, oddly enough, from the judiciary.
In one 2022 case, for example, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson declared during sentencing, “People need to understand that they can’t do this, or anything like this, again. They can’t try to force their will on the American people once the American people have already spoken at the ballot box. That’s the opposite of democracy — it’s tyranny. And the threat to democracy, the dark shadow of tyranny, unfortunately, has not gone away.
“There are people who are still disseminating the lie that the election was stolen. They’re doing it today,” she continued. “And the people who are stoking that anger for their own selfish purposes, they need to think about the havoc they’ve wreaked, the lives they’ve ruined, the harm to their supporters’ families, even, and the threat to this country’s foundation.”
Similarly, in November 2021, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta sentenced a Jan. 6 rioter named John Lolos, while reflecting on the fact that the criminal was responding to Donald Trump’s call.
Mehta said at the time, “People like Mr. Lolos were told lies, told falsehoods, told our election was stolen when it clearly was not. We’re here today deciding whether Mr. Lolos should spend 30 days in jail when those who created the conditions that led to Mr. Lolos’ conduct, led to the events of Jan. 6 [haven’t been] held to account for their actions and their word.”
Speaking directly to the defendant, the judge continued, “In a sense, Mr. Lolos, I think you were a pawn. You were a pawn in a game directed and played by people who should know better.”
Five months later, after a jury convicted another Jan. 6 rioter, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton shared a few thoughts after the verdict was read. “I think our democracy is in trouble, because unfortunately we have charlatans like our former president, who doesn’t, in my view, really care about democracy but only about power,” the conservative federal jurist said in court.
Lamberth’s latest assessment was important, but I’m pleased to report he’s not the only member of the federal judiciary telling the truth about Jan. 6, whether defendants or their Republican champions want to hear it or not.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.