Lying is not right

Shannon Bohrer

(8/2022) The January 6th Congressional Investigation hearings were simultaneously enlightening, disheartening, and frightful. There are many that believe the truth has been revealed and those who tried to overthrow our government will be held accountable. Others believe the hearings are political and are being held for political reasons. As expected, some news outlets ignored the hearings altogether, using the worn-out excuse of fake news.

We understand that two people witnessing the same event can have different perceptions of what happened, but sometimes the differences seem beyond our comprehensions. A recent example: Louie Gohmert, a Texas representative, was questioning the arrest of a Republican friend, when he said, "If you're a Republican, you can't even lie to Congress or lie to an FBI agent or they're coming after you." A politician defending another political figure for lying to the FBI, and simultaneously implying that lying is normal and acceptable, or is expected, should be repudiated. A quote from Theodore Roosevelt seems appropriate, "When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not Guilty'." If Louie Gohmert answers a role call with "Not Guilty," would he be believed?

Louie Gohmert’s statement on a national news station, with his perspective that the Republicans are being attacked, reminds me of the old adage that we tend to overlook and excuse mistakes by our friends and yet it is easy to find faults with our enemies. Gohmert’s words stretch that concept. Defending a former white house official that lied to cover up a criminal investigation, goes well beyond excusing a friend. Sadly, it does support our perceptions of inept and corrupt politicians.

As we have observed while watching the January 6th congressional hearings, for some people the truth is not important. The hearings definitely refute lies we have been told, such as fraudulent ballots being counted. It is also obvious that the truth was often missing in the previous administration. Additionally, truth was not just missing, it was standard operating procedure to mislead, obfuscate, blur, and distort information. The big lie, that Trump won the election, was the reason and the impetus for many of the lies that followed. The large number of elected officials’ and government employees, as well as others knew the lies existed but said nothing, was also shocking, yet not surprising. Knowing that there are members of congress who either believe the lies, or just ignored them, confirms what we have witnessed. Apparently, you do not need to be honest, while pretending to represent the people.

The big lie has been debunked on what seems like a continuum, yet many still believed it, or at least peddle the words. In this current election cycle, over a year and a half since Trump lost, we still have candidates touting the same big lie, that Trump won the last election.

The testimony given during the January 6th hearings was frightening because it exposed a concerted effort by numerous elected officials and others to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the next president. And the obvious, and often stated purpose, was to keep Trump in office. After the election, numerous telephone calls were made to various state officials, requesting votes that were not even cast (phantom ballots), be added to Trump. This was followed with a plan to not allow the counting of the Electoral College votes. Adding to this criminal enterprise was an effort to provide "alternative" electors to support the individual that lost the election. This is only a brief summary of the attempt to overthrow our elected government. The truth is that when a minority rules the majority, it’s called "fascism."

One film clip of former general Michael Flynn, the former National Security Director, was both telling and distressing. He invoked his 5th amendment right not to incriminate himself when asked if he believed in a peaceful transfer of power, and also when asked if the capital riot was justified. Why?

At the center of this criminal conspiracy is the ex-president. He started the "Big Lie," long before the election occurred. The potential criminal charges against him are serious and if charged and found guilty, he could face incarceration for many years.

There are numerous talking heads and experts saying that it would be very unusual for a former president to be charged with a criminal offense. In fact, if charged with a crime he would be the only one. An argument against charging the former president is that we do not want to set a precedent. Besides, if the January 6th investigation can prove to the American people that Trump committed crimes and he fails to get re-elected, that is a reasonable alternative to charging a former president with a crime.

The perspective that we do not want to set a precedent, is flawed, deeply flawed. If we do not go there, what would prevent him from returning to office? If we do not go there, could someone with similar intentions, but smarter than Trump get elected and surreptitiously become president for life?

If Trump, or a Trump like person is elected to the presidency, what guardrails would prevent them from repeating a January 6th? If you recall, after Trump’s first impeachment, a senator said she voted not to impeach, because she said that Trump "had learned his lesson." The reality is he learned that he could do as he pleased and would not be held accountable. If there was no responsibility or accounting with the Mueller report, two impeachments and an insurrection, any future president that has similar ambitions might see the lack of accountability as a green light to do as they wish.

While I found the January 6th hearings disheartening because of the content, I did find a little hope, at least temporarily. Republican Rusty Bowers, the Arizona House Speaker, gave me some pause that all was not lost. He said, "I do not want to be a winner by cheating. I will not play with laws I swore allegiance to with any contrived desire towards deflection of my deep foundational desire to follow God's will, as I believe he led my conscience to embrace." He said he believed our Constitution was divinely inspired. I wonder if he knows Louie Gohmert.

After telling us why he would not comply with Trump’s request, Rusty went on to say that he would vote for Trump if the election choice was Trump or Biden. Having such strong beliefs as Rusty Bowers depicted, I was surprised. You call out someone that attempted to overthrow the government, someone trying to tear up the constitution, then vote for them in a future election. That is not explainable.

It has been said for a while that there is a possibility that we may lose our democracy. What happens if Trump runs again, and again he tells us that if he does not win, the election is fixed? If and when we do not have trust in our elections, will our democracy end?

"A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody." - Thomas Paine