The impeachment diaries: a recap of everything that happened after the Capitol riots – Screen Shot
Deep Dives Level Up Newsletters Saved Articles Challenges

The impeachment diaries: a recap of everything that happened after the Capitol riots

The cold afternoon of 6 January, 2021, brought an excess of 82 arrests of Pro-Trump rioters who stormed the US Capitol as a protest against Joe Biden’s electoral win. With a total of five deaths and multiple injuries, the ‘peaceful gathering’ quickly turned into an afternoon of chaos, summoning the National Guard to help secure the building. In the hours that followed, Trump posted a one-minute video lamenting his electoral loss and urged his supporters to “go home” followed by a “We love you; you are very special.” The video was later taken down by Twitter, YouTube and Facebook citing it as ‘false information’ with ‘risk of violence’.

There is a lot that went down (in history as well) post 6 January. To start with, Trump now faces a second impeachment for “incitement of insurrection.” Amassing the majority of House votes, Trump currently awaits a Senate trial set to begin on 19 January, which would carry on even after the end of his presidential term. This gives us enough and more time to recapitulate every crazy bit of news revolving around his impeachment, don’t you think?

Pro-Trump rioters could face up to 20 years in prison

One of the most iconic American buildings was broken into. Pipe bombs were found and government laptops with highly sensitive security information were stolen. According to Fortune, Pro-Trump rioters could face serious penalties for these actions.

“Rioters with felony charges like unlawfully and violently entering the House floor could face five years of prison. Meanwhile, assaulting a federal officer with a weapon could mean 20 years of incarceration, particularly if the officer was injured” said Stanford University law professor David Sklansky.

The FBI is currently seeking information through a digital form that will assist them in identifying individuals who actively instigated violence in the Capitol. The form encourages the submission of images, videos and other multimedia files related to possible violations of federal law committed.

Teen names her family spotted in a viral video on the streets of Washington

18-year-old Helena Duke took Twitter by storm after she named her mother, aunt and uncle spotted in a viral video filmed the night before the Capitol raid. The video highlighted a group of white Trump loyalists confronting a black woman who is later seen defending herself from an oncoming assault from Duke’s mother. Responses to her tweet were mixed. Some appreciated her efforts in helping identify potential rioters while others just labelled it “downright disrespectful.” Duke now joins an increasing list of families torn apart by Trump’s presidency.

A Texas woman took a private jet to Washington to storm the Capitol

Jenna Ryan, a Texas-based realtor and radio host allegedly took a private jet to Washington with three others to support what she claimed to be a “peaceful march” in protest of Joe Biden’s presidential win. As an attempt to join the #MarchToSaveAmerica, Ryan posted several photos and videos from the Capitol grounds on Twitter and Facebook. One tweet even featured her posing next to a broken window with the caption “Window at The capital. And if the news doesn’t stop lying about us we’re going to come after their studios next…” Yes, we kept the spelling of this tweet intact…

Although Ryan continues to deny all allegations of entering the Capitol, her live-stream video broadcasted from inside the building while chanting ‘USA’ made it easier for the FBI to track her down, not to mention all of the other ‘circumstantial’ evidence.

Donald Trump’s Twitter ban sparks potential takeover of Melania Trump’s account

After Facebook made the call to permanently suspend Trump’s account, Twitter followed suit. Ensuing a 24-hour suspension, Twitter pulled the plug on @realDonaldTrump, stating an extensive list of reasons via its blog post. The aftermath of this decision was a rocky one: several Trump loyalists threatened to leave the platform while critics dug up old meme templates to use.

The Twitter ban also sparked debates on Trump’s potential takeover of Melania’s account. Although no recent tweets have surfaced on the first lady’s personal and government account, some critics had a field day imagining the takeover.

Nancy Pelosi and the birth of the ‘Trump Impeachment Dress’

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has recently been making headlines for ‘recycling’ the same black outfit she wore for Donald Trump’s previous impeachment back in 2019. The only change made to the entire ensemble was the substitution of the golden Mace of the Republic brooch with a patterned face mask. On impeachment days Nancy wears black. And honestly, we’re digging it!

Moving boxes arriving at the White House

14 January recorded a rare sign of Trump moving out of the White House. The pallets of cardboard boxes, according to NBC News, were delivered to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building as the Biden administration is set to take office on 20 January and further plans on deep cleaning the White House following multiple outbreaks of the coronavirus on White House grounds.

Trump is expected to move down to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after he leaves office—guess it’s time for him to pack up his golf kits and fake Renoir.

The way forward for Trump

With an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to his impeachment, the odds don’t look good for Trump. If not for the insurrection, New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez states to impeach Trump for his now-infamous Georgia votes phone call. Either way, this second impeachment and conviction have strong chances to pave the way to the denial of all post-presidential perks for Trump. To begin with, this includes removing his name as a beneficiary to a number of taxpayer-financed benefits, denying a stipend of $200,000 per year and barring the possibility of a $1 million travel budget along with taxpayer subsidies.

These undeserved perks add to the growing list of reasons why the nation would hold its breath once the Senate reconvenes. Curious to know what Trump has to say about all this? Here’s his comment.

The Supreme Court just passed the first anti-abortion decision of the Amy Coney Barrett era

While we were busy following the latest developments in Trump’s impeachment and the aftermath of the Capitol riots, the Supreme Court of the US has reinstated a contested federal requirement that women seeking abortion through medication pick up a pill in person at a hospital or clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic instead of receiving one through mail-order pharmacies. The decision, issued earlier this week, has been the Court’s first abortion-related ruling since Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination in October, and has rightfully alarmed women’s rights activists.

At the core of the legal battle is a requirement issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which mandates that women who seek to terminate their pregnancy through medication pick up the first drug of the two—mifepristone—in person at a clinic or hospital, even if they had already consulted a doctor remotely. The FDA’s restriction does not require in-person pick-ups for the second pill, misoprostol, which is taken one to two days later.

Voir cette publication sur Instagram

Une publication partagée par impact 🌱 (@impact)

Medication-induced abortion, which can be administered during the first 10 weeks of the pregnancy, currently account for over 50 per cent of abortions within this time frame in the US.

The FDA requirement is part of a flurry of attempted abortion restrictions throughout the country that crescendoed during Trump’s presidency. With an anti-abortion ally in the White House, lawmakers and ‘pro-life’ advocates felt emboldened to ram through countless bills and measures that sought to deny women agency over their bodies.

A coalition composed of various groups, doctors, and women’s advocates had filed a lawsuit last year in an attempt to strike down the FDA’s in-person pick up requirement. The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and included among its plaintiffs the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), whose members account for close to 90 per cent of all obstetricians and gynaecologists in the US.

In their lawsuit, the petitioners highlighted the grave health risk that unwarranted in-person visits to hospitals and medical clinics during a pandemic that has thus far infected over 22.5 million Americans would pose to pregnant women seeking abortion, the medical staff and their communities.

In July 2020, a Federal District Court judge in Maryland, Theodore Chuang, suspended the FDA’s requirement, finding the petitioner’s arguments regarding unnecessary health hazards during COVID-19 to be reasonable, and adding that the government’s insistence on having pregnant women (many of whom are poor) travel, often long distances, to medical centres during a deadly pandemic could infringe on their constitutional right to abortion.

Judge Chuang has also pointed out in his decision that during COVID-19 the federal government has issued exceptions for in-person pick-ups for other drugs, including potent ones such as opioids.

After Chuang’s ruling had been unanimously upheld by a 3-judge panel at a Virginia appeals court, the Trump administration hurried to take up the matter with the Supreme Court. Following a back and forth between the justices and Chuang, the Supreme Court finally deliberated on the matter and, earlier this week, decided to reinstate the FDA’s requirement, with the Court’s three liberal justices dissenting.

Commenting on the Court’s order, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. stated that the decision to revive the requirement is a limited one, and will have to be further assessed by experts. Justice Roberts further said that the rationale behind the ruling was not “a woman’s right to an abortion as a general matter,” but rather Chuang’s interference with the federal government’s methods of handling the COVID-19 crisis. “My view is that courts owe significant deference to the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence and expertise to assess public health’,” the chief justice stated, citing a previous ruling of the court.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that, “This country’s laws have long singled out abortions for more onerous treatment than other medical procedures that carry similar or greater risks.” She added that the FDA’s mandating of in-person pick up for abortion pills during the pandemic while issuing exception for other drugs “not only treats abortion exceptionally,” but also “imposes an unnecessary, irrational and unjustifiable undue burden on women seeking to exercise their right to choose.”

Julia Kaye, a lawyer for ACLU, said in a statement that “The court’s ruling rejects science, compassion and decades of legal precedent in service of the Trump administration’s anti-abortion agenda,” adding that “It is mind-boggling that the Trump administration’s top priority on its way out the door is to needlessly endanger even more people during this dark pandemic winter—and chilling that the Supreme Court allowed it.”

This week’s decision has confirmed the nightmare of all who hold women’s rights dear: Justice Barrett’s addition to the bench marks the onset of a dark era of the court. With a conservative-leaning majority, the Supreme Court can be expected to continue to deliver rulings that may not overtly negate women’s right to choose, but rely on cynical technicalities and manipulative distortions of the law in order to veil the sinister, underlying goal of restricting abortion access.

The landmark Roe v. Wade ruling granting women in the US a universal right to terminate pregnancies is under attack. Right now, across the country, hundreds of bills aiming to heavily restrict or altogether ban abortion access are making their way through courts that have been packed with judges and justices that object women’s right to choose and look to stiffen an agenda that seeks to deprive women of sexual and personal independence.

And, as is the case with most iterations of state-sanctioned oppression, the crackdown on reproductive rights is disproportionately affecting women of colour and low-income background, making it not only a gender issue but a class and race one as well.

The incoming Biden administration will have to utilise the momentum gained by controlling both chambers of Congress in order to roll back the Trump administration’s abortion restrictions and place powerful and resilient protections for reproductive rights in order to ward off any future attempts to curtail them.