Senate Dems Introduce Bill Banning Taxpayer-Funded Payouts To Capitol Rioters
Tuesday marked the fifth anniversary of the Jan. 6 Capitol Riot, where a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Since taking office for his inexplicable second term, President Donald Trump has done everything in his power to downplay the events of that day, even going so far as to pardon convicted rioters of their crimes. So it comes as no surprise that Senate Democrats have felt it necessary to introduce two bills preventing taxpayer funds from being awarded to those pardoned.
According to CBS News, the first bill would ban the establishment of any compensation fund that would award money to Jan 6 rioters. The second bill, titled the “No Settlements for January 6 Law Enforcement Assaulters Act,” would prevent any federal tax money from being used to pay for civil legal settlements for Jan. 6 rioters who were convicted of assaulting police. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat currently serving as vice-chair of the Senate Rules Committee. Padilla told CBS News his legislation “would hold these rioters accountable and protect taxpayers by putting an end to Donald Trump’s callous attempt to rewrite history.”
“These insurrectionists should still be serving their sentences and paying fines for damages they caused to the Capitol — not receiving refunds or cash rewards from the Trump Administration,” Padilla said.
It’s a sad sign of America’s state when legislation like this is actually necessary. In August, Attorney Mark McCloskey, whose X bio says he’s “championing the cause of J6 compensation,” wrote, “To all the J6 political prisoners out there- I’m doing everything I can to [expedite] the establishment of a claims resolution procedure so we can get you back on your feet and get you some real justice.”
The Trump administration has already approved a $5 million settlement to the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed by a Capitol police officer while she was trying to break into the House Speaker’s Lobby.
Only in America can a group of white folks desecrate our nation’s highest office and be treated like they’re the real victims. Adding insult to injury is the fact that an official plaque honoring the police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 has yet to be displayed. According to ABC News, Congress passed a law in 2022 requiring the Architect of the Capitol to install the plaque, though the deadline for its installation passed in 2024.
Democrats in Congress have taken to displaying makeshift versions of the plaque outside of their offices. “On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on Jan. 6, 2021,” reads the makeshift plaques. “Their heroism will never be forgotten.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson has refused to unveil the plaque, and the Department of Justice is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Capitol police officers to have the plaque installed as required by law. “By refusing to follow the law and honor officers as it is required to do, Congress encourages this rewriting of history,” reads the suit filed by officers Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges. “It suggests that the officers are not worthy of being recognized, because Congress refuses to recognize them.”
A spokesperson for Johnson released a statement to AP saying that the statute requiring the plaque to be displayed is “not implementable” and that the proposed alternatives “do not comply.” They didn’t go into detail about why the statute isn’t implementable, nor why the alternatives aren’t suitable.
It’s crazy how the party that’s quick to yell out catchphrases like “Back the Blue” and “Blue Lives Matter” is suddenly quiet when it comes to acknowledging the sacrifices made by the Capitol police officers who put themselves between the Congress members and the angry mob that was coming after them. It’s almost like the GOP will sacrifice any of the principles it claims to hold as soon as it’s politically inconvenient. Who knew?
SEE ALSO: